[governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's comments)

Mon Aug 23 12:51:07 EDT 2010

Dear all, Paul and Bill,

I have no qualms whatsoever with any of the nominees that have been put
foward and will not propose myself for obvious reasons ;-)

What I want to address here is I think there is a misunderstanding between
Paul and Bill that must be clarified right away.

What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is
the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues
that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the
CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes a
name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to draft
entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present in
the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of
democracy.

This *clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, *as has
successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for people
to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. Could we ask
the co-moderators to initiate such a process and maybe designate two or
three people (with diverse perspectives) to rapidly prepare a first blurb
(with main headings only as a starting point) ?

As for Paul's remarks, his Post Scriptum is actually simpler to understand
than the analogy with someone's hand in somebody else's pocket (where is the
hand here and whose pocket is it ?). In his PS, Paul wrote : "*There is
typically always a way to diplomatically say what needs to be said without
taking away any points or any force in what one is saying*". Here I
vehemently agree (as Milton likes to say) : integrity of speech is in the
substance of the message, not the degree of abruptness in the formulation.
Since when has thinking strategically, identifying allies and polishing
formulations been considered equivalent to caving in and submitting to the
powers that be ? The IGC has demonstrated regularly in the past years its
capacity to deliver strong messages in a constructive and articulated voice
and there is no reason for it to become unable to do so in this instance.

By the way, let's be aware that there is not a simple dichotomy here with
the good civil society completely in agreement on what is best for global
citizens and the bad governments just wanting to kill the IGF. Reality is
that there are strong supporters of the IGF among governments (and other
actors) and divergent views (and legitimately so) within this very list on
precise modalities for "improvement", let alone the fundamental legitimacy
of specific forms of multi-stakeholder interaction (see the debate on
multistakeholder*ism*). Lines of opposition cross constituencies more often
than we seem to think.

The diversity of viewpoints has always been a strength of the IGC as in many
respects it represents, in a microcosm, the diversity of positions of the
IGF participants at large. This is why many of them are actually following
this list as silent participants, because it informs their own positions and
exposes them to arguments they do not hear in their respective silos.

Any consensus that the IGC can shape is therefore likely to be balanced and
showing a good way forward (as it did in the past for the very creation of
the IGF). Likewise, any clear description of various alternatives and the
pros and cons of each (when there is no full agreement on the list) will
positively inform the discussion. The IGF is constantly walking a fine line
between too much informality and too much formality; between too much
involvement of one category of actors and too little; between superficial
consensus and destructive oppositions. Maintaining such delicate balances is
key to its progress and to its demonstration that it is really useful.
Absolute positions in one direction of the other risks moving us all away
from the goal.

This has nothing to do with being negative or positive as a matter of
principle (although I personally always believe there is possibility to
formulate in a positive way even strong arguments), but about saying in a
constructive manner what we collectively believe is right, in full
appreciation of what is at stake. This is basically a matter of exercising
full responsibility.

I hope this helps.

Best

Bertrand

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> Whenever one does not have a distinct term of office in which one
> essentially can't be removed (as with most elected representatives)
> these kinds of "be careful" and "be strategic" and "don't be negative"
> considerations always arise.
>
> This is the condition of every single civil society "stakeholder"
> granted some sort of voice in a process: They know full well that they
> can not say everything, can't very often be negative, and they feel
> they must be strategic in what they talk or complain about.  It is
> thus that advocating for the truth is replaced by responding to the
> carrots and sticks of the powers that be, which is my interpretation
> of the class of statements this quote from below is in:  "it would be
> a bad idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors
> who are pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based
> configuration."
>
> Isn't it nearly always a bad idea to "directly take on" the powers
> that be from a certain self-preservation perspective?
>
> What if the powers that be are abusive?  In that case, they will
> really not appreciate a "negative" approach and do need to be
> addressed most directly.  To use an example by way of analogy using
> something everyone can understand:
>
> If someone puts their hand down somebody elses pocket, invading the
> security of their person as well as property, and keeps fishing around
> down there, is there any approach to take other than directly taking
> them on and firmly requesting or demanding the full removal of their
> hand from one's pocket?
>
> Only a slavish fear of imminent harm would counsel caution or lack of
> negativity in directly taking on such a person.  Only a fool would
> compromise such that the hand only need come half way out of the
> pocket.  Only the confused in this instance would get hung up on the
> demand "get your hand out of my pocket right now" as being "negative."
>
> I'm not saying now is definitely the time to be direct and negative.
>
> But, I am saying that the assessment of the necessity of being
> "negative" and "direct"  has to be independent of the "threat" of IGF
> non-renewal and the like, and thus independent of conflicts of
> interest.   Any who purport to give voice to people or to interests
> are misrepresenting either the nature and certainly the extent of
> their giving voice when they are being strategic.
>
> Without this disregard of the personal or organizational costs of
> speaking the truth,  the decisions about what is said or not said
> ultimately lack integrity -- and this is intrinsically justified by a
> belief that one is  under a degree of duress, such as IGF renewal.
>
> This fear can be backwards. I was essentially an elected official for
> several years, a governor of a bar association. I made a "no holds
> barred" speech, calling the situation "catastrophic" and naming names.
>  The minutes reflect that I made "compelling" arguments on an issue
> not really heard before and an effort was set up to draft a permanent
> ("stakeholder?") committee to forward a resolution to solve the
> problem.  That was done, new voices were brought in to (in effect)
> study solutions to the problem I emphatically laid out.  Today, it's
> been addressed.
>
> I learned from that experience and others that holding back can hurt
> somebody pretty badly if they have a good faith audience who might
> otherwise respond to a compelling call to justice.
>
> Approached the other way, whatever substantive  points are
> "strategically" held back tend to prove that civil society does not
> really represent people first and foremost.  Rather, it has first and
> foremost in its mind  its own self-preservation and continuing access
> to the apparent halls of power.  That's quite human, and it may be
> done sometimes for apparently noble motives like "continuing the great
> and important work we have."  But still a conflict of interest that
> undermines civil society's claim to importance.
>
>  Wisdom, in my opinion, comes in seeing that these excuses or
> considerations for not speaking truth to power are virtually always
> present in some significant degree, and thus there is never a good
> time to speak the uncensored truth, if one allows personal or
> organizational conflicts of interest to hold sway.  The challenge,
> instead, is outlined in my P.S. below - to not hold back but to speak
> articulately, compellingly and (usually) diplomatically.  These are
> the only true qualifications, and anyone can meet them at one or many
> times of their life, regardless of background or education, but we
> must know when to send the sober policy wonks, and the answer to that
> question is surely not "always."
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
> P.S.  There is typically always a way to diplomatically say what needs
> to be said without taking away any points or any force in what one is
> saying.  I tried to above, as it would have been shorter and less
> diplomatic  to say:
>
>  "Don't be a sycophant to power, have some integrity and actually try
> to give voice to  all of the voices you know in the halls of power
> where they aren't heard often enough, or ever.  "Pulling punches" may
> or may not succeed at self-preservation, but it certainly constitutes
> a confllct of interest and it certainly destroys the claim that civil
> society is up to the task of representing anything other than a
> strategic slice of civil society."
>
> The main text above is closest to my true intent, and it is also more
> diplomatic (I trust).
>
>
> On 8/20/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. [...] You
> might want to keep Bill Drake's previous post in mind... (see below)
> > Best, Ginger>
> >
> > Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF will be
> > renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in
> > intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for
> CS
> > interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive
> to
> > what's going on and calibrated accordingly.  Presumably it would be a bad
> > idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are
> > pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But
> the
> > case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive
> > manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for
> > "improvements."  Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should
> be
> > somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even
> > coordinate a bit on the message.  This relates to selecting nominees as
> > well—consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and
> discussions
> > (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these
> > parameters.
> >
>
-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100823/d9181747/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t