[governance] Update from today's MAG call

Sat Aug 3 21:43:10 EDT 2013

Stereotyping is about the characterization of individuals.  If there is such a discussion of individuals on this list then (as has been the case in the past) this is something calling for intervention from the Co-Co's.  

Finding and articulating normative consensus (perhaps another way of saying "circling the wagons") so as to draw a boundary between those party to that consensus and those who aren't is a necessary function of any grouping of this kind and specifically for the formulation and expression of collective positions on the part of the various stakeholders.  I fail to see what might be negative about a process of that kind.

M

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:24 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky'
Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call

We agree. However George did make the point that stereotypes abound, as does a circle the wagons and exclude outsiders mentality 

--srs

-------- Original message --------
From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 
Date: 08/04/2013 6:33 AM (GMT+05:30) 
To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' <suresh at hserus.net>,'George Sadowsky' <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call 

I think you have misread my point, which I assumed was obvious from the context, and was simply meant to respond to George's assertion that "characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such". I did not mention civil society  etc.etc. Nice people in specific normatively/organizationally defined contexts can be understood to do nasty things and shouldn't be let off the hook simply because they are "nice and reasonable people"… That of course, holds for CS, the corporate sector and governments equally with others.

M

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 7:42 AM
To: michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky'
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call

I am sorry but which of the several stakeholder groups here is getting compared to the NSA and is full of nice and reasonable people but with evil aims? 

You are talking about the policies of various governments there which aren't set by any one individual that is likely to attend the IGF but even there, tarring governments with the same brush for the actions taken by specific governments, isn't on. And human rights violations and invasions of privacy span a broad spectrum so I am not so sure such a simplistic world view would work. 

It certainly isn't a brush that you could reasonably use to paint all of industry or all of civil society the uniform black. 

--srs

-------- Original message --------
From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 
Date: 08/04/2013 5:30 AM (GMT+05:30) 
To: 'George Sadowsky' <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call 

A few inline comments George,

From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call

Michael,

I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table.

[MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of this…

In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind.  In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it.  Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism.

[MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as others

On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors.  Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes.  The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society.

[MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy conferences" and conferences "about policy"… I think that to at least some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is informational for the various parties involved… 

There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous.  In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues.  For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse.

[MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes involved.

I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours.  This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over.

[MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing that there are differences in details within each of these groups) and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary.

In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF.  They are set by  the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors.  In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of  recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session.  If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support.

[MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say.

Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so. 

However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences.  The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such.

[MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various governments globally that are complicit in the building of the Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large.  That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a global level.

By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here.  These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group.

[MG>] 

Best,

Mike

Regards,

George

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

On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

(Sorry, working through my mail front to back…

I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global).

Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders.

(BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.)

Mike

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: Grace Githaiga
Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call

All,

I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it.

In fact, it would be more appropriate if  representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around.  This should not be a top down operation. 

The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply.  This is not true for regional and national IGFs.

Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. 

On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote:

On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote:

"Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". 

Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? 

In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company  decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on boar

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130804/41f8be6b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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