[governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society

[George Sadowsky]

All,

There are some important issues in this intechange.

First, I speak only for myself in this forum, not 
at all for ICANN.  What I say here has noting to 
do with my connection with ICANN.  Perhaps I 
should have made that explicit, but I thought it 
would be obvious.

In addition, ICANN's mandate is to ensure the 
safety and security of the Internet with regard 
to assigned names and numbers, and to work for 
the public interest in doing so.  Its mandate is 
purposely bounded, and I suspect that almost all 
of the people who subscribe to this list would 
like to keep it this way.

Second, thinking about a longer term strategy for 
civil society does not preclude acting in the 
short term, whether it's preparing a position 
paper or actually engaging in work the field to 
support valued principles.  Furthermore, a longer 
term vision/strategy that has achieved consensus 
is likely to be helpful in informing short term 
activities.  My post concerned itself with 
Wolfgang's suggestion,not with the draft that is 
currently being scrutinized by the group.

Third, I like practical solutions.  I don't like 
establishing goals that cannot possibly be 
achieved and for which no action can be specified 
and is taken.  In particular, I don't like goals 
that provide self-satisfaction to the person who 
sets them but does nothing to work toward that 
goal in an effective manner.

Let's look at the United Nations MDGs just as an 
example.  Consider goal 4: reducing infant 
mortality:

	Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and 
2015, the under-five mortality rate

Now I believe that no one on this list, and 
certainly no one at the United Nations, is in 
favor of any residual infant mortality.  However, 
note that the goal is not to eliminate infant 
mortality completely,  but to reduce it very 
significantly.  This is possibly a realistic 
goal.  If it can be met (and Iam not an expert on 
whether it is feasible or not), then a next 
reasonable goal would be to reduce it further.

There are some things that you can do with a 
realistic goal such as this.  for example, you 
can analyze where and why the rate of infant 
mortality is high, and consider what measures, if 
taken, would reduce it and by how much.  You can 
prioritize efforts toward achieving this goal and 
get the biggest return for the money spent.

It's interesting to speculate what kinds of goals 
might be appropriate for civil society actors  -- 
presumably including subscribers to this list  -- 
if such an approach were taken.  Here are some 
examples that have some appeal for me; if you 
don't like them, choose some that you like better:

1. Work toward achieving formal acceptance of 
confidentiality of information on the Internet in 
80% of the countries in the world.  Develop or 
use an existing measure of open governance 
hostility to identify governments where action at 
the local level is needed and should be 
supported.  Transparency International and others 
are engaged in this type of activity.

2. Work toward establishing and propagating a 
collection of techniques, tools and training that 
will allow civil society investigators in 
countries with less-than-open governments to be 
effective in their collection of information 
while protecting themselves, their data,and their 
sources.  Citizen Lab in Toronto is an excellent 
example of this approach.

3. Develop policy statements that are helpful in 
understanding situations and that prescribe 
realistic actions to improve the situation.  The 
access paper of APC is a good example of such an 
effort.

4. Develop educational programs that educate 
people internationally regarding technology, 
governance, economics -- whatever is necessary to 
seed governments and other organizations with 
people who understand an are or will be in 
positions to affect the policies of their 
governments.  The ICANN Studentkreis and Diplo 
Foundation's instructional program in Internet 
governance are good examples of this.

5. Work in the field, assisting groups and 
countries with spreading technology and working 
to provide affordable and available access to it 
with commitments of confidentiality of 
information.  McTim has spent a lot of time doing 
exactly this.


This world isn't perfect.  Bad things happen, 
very often not to the right people.   In the very 
short run, we are often powerless to do anything 
about it.  However, in the longer run, we can 
work towards an environment, country by country, 
ultimately at a global level, in which far fewer 
bad things happen, and the set of ideals to which 
most of us subscribe will be more broadly 
respected and practiced.

This takes work.  Discussion is useful, but is 
likely to be sterile unless followed by or 
accompanied by significant action.  I argue that 
the action should be directed toward achievable 
goals, achievable relative to the mandate and the 
resources of the organization, both in the short 
and long run.

I trust that I've spelled out my opinions and 
feelings sufficiently so that there will be no 
further misinterpretation.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 2:41 PM -0800 1/18/10, Eric Dierker wrote:
>Please pull your head out of the clouds and look 
>at what this paper is designed for.
>All these concepts are beautiful and wonderful. 
>Perhaps this is why we say: Those who can do,,, 
>those who cannot teach. (not specific here but 
>the concept applies)
>
>Would it make more sense for an ICANN bod member 
>to want to guide us from practical into 
>ethereal??  I am just saying....
>
>I especially like the tenor that we should 
>lesson goals away from what is right and more 
>into what is achievable. Yes we should set our 
>ideals low, like "at least some folks should 
>have access to knowledge". Like telling a 
>rookie, "just be glad we let you play" leave the 
>scoring to us old veterans.
>
>Today is a reality: Iranian authorities have 
>warned opposition supporters against using text 
>and e-mail messages to organise protest 
>rallies.  Note that opposing this notion would 
>be a "Utopia". And ICANN would never have a 
>stance against it, lest they offend.
>
>--- On Sat, 1/16/10, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>From: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>
>Subject: Re: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society re
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, ""Kleinwächter, 
>Wolfgang"" 
><wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010, 3:55 PM
>
>All,
>
>I thank Wolfgang for contributing the wisdom in his message below to the list.
>
>In particular, the notion of a long run 
>strategy, with long run defined goals and 
>objectives for civil society, is very appealing. 
>It would provide a compact and  clearly 
>articulated vision of what the desired goals are 
>as well as a guide for short run activities that 
>would encourage the attainment of those goals.
>
>I like Wolfgang's emphasis on viewing civil 
>society activities in a broader scope, including 
>not only IGF but also ITU, GAID and the United 
>Nations.  There are a number of players in this 
>space; some will continue play in it 
>indefinitely, some will fade out of existence, 
>and others are likely to be born.  Having a 
>vision that concentrates upon principles is 
>likely to me more useful in a shifting landscape 
>of different organizations with changing and 
>different objectives.
>
>Having long run articulated goals that are not 
>so utopian as to be unachievable appeals very 
>much to me.  As Wolfgang notes, there will be a 
>post-MAG/IGF period, we are already entering a 
>post-JPA/ICANN period, and it's likely that 
>there will be a post-GAID period also.  What in 
>the long run are the characteristics of the 
>Internet governance regime  --  as well as the 
>state of ICT4D delivery (which may be as or more 
>important)  --  that civil society could 
>practically achieve in those future periods?
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>At 1:13 PM +0100 1/16/10, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Hi all
>>
>>  McTim is right, there is no "rough consensus".
>  >
>>  I did not jump into the discussion because I 
>>am very busy these days with some other 
>>activities, however I follow the debate and 
>>would warn to move forward too fast.
>>
>>  There is a need for a more fundamental 
>>clarification of the whole issue and a more 
>>strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the 
>>role of civil society in Internet Governance 
>>policy development in the coming years. This is 
>>part of a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post 
>>JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of 
>>the IGC in all these processes (including the 
>>forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010 
>>and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in 
>>October 2010). And what the IGC is doing in 
>>other process where Internet Governance becomes 
>>an issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how 
>>the IGC positioned itself to new processes in 
>>the UN General Assembly (with regard to 
>>Internet security and governance, pushed by the 
>>government of Russia in the 2nd committee)? And 
>>what we are doing in cases like Google vs. 
>>China?
>>
>>  Before we make hasty statements on the future 
>>of the IGF, probably we should start to discuss 
>>a more strategic vision paper on "Civil Society 
>>and Internet Governance 2015". If we have 
>>something like this until the IGF in Vilnjus 
>>this would be great. We could have an extra one 
>>day pre-conference of the IGC to invite also 
>>other stakeholders and we could organize one or 
>>two workshops around this strategic 
>>re-orientation within the IGF 2010 programme.
>>
>>  Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair 
>>you want to "deliver" something, but sometimes 
>>it is better for a chair just to enable the 
>>members of the group to exchange their views, 
>>to stimulare their thinking and to moderate a 
>>bottom up opinion building process. Strong 
>>leadership includes also the capacity to 
>>listen, to ask questions (not to give quick 
>>answers) and to steer the process from behind, 
>>where needed.
>>
>>  Best regards
>>
>>  Wolfgang
>>
>____________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100118/b953a222/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