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

Tue Jan 19 01:08:47 EST 2010

Mr. Sadowsky,
Thank you for your attention. It is good of you to spend the time laying out a broad and encompassing vision.  You remarks make clear very pertinent and important facts.  I concur that we must have at least a two prong approach. One of immediate concerns and practical solutions and positions and one of "keeping our eye on the ball" and maintaining a long term perspective that can help guide us and inspire us in long hours of hard work and debate. We must not let short term tasks divert us from a larger purpose and a greater benefit for all.

I would add another need, a daily monitoring and check on purpose and a watchful eye toward actions or innactions that benefit agendas and not purpose. That often in this very diverse group of good people short term private and personal plans sometimes derail good works. Minute negative distractions often derail good projects. I apologize but sometimes a short remark without explanation does not do justice to good points such as the ones you lay out here. I appreciate your setting me straight, and hopefully others have benefited from your correction to my assumptions.

As we write the 4 areas are being redefined and adjusted and rightly so.

Today in the US we celebrated a fine man who held "extraordinary things happen when ordinary people care". Your work reveals your caring.

--- On Tue, 1/19/10, 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
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 1:48 AM

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
>
____________________________________________________________ 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100118/0f766b29/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