[governance] Update from today's MAG call
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Aug 4 03:43:57 EDT 2013
On Sunday 04 August 2013 07:25 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> The discussions are disintegrating and becoming non- productive. It is
> perfectly normal to hold and have diverse conflicting view points. Why
> don't we consider developing considerations ( does not have to be
> principles at this stage) for IGF workshop convenors. We can start by
> listing things that have been shared through this emai thread and also
> other past discussions on the list on the subject.
>
> This can be put to the IGC and if there is consensus, we can move to
> have this sent to the MAG.
>
> A material point of distinction would of course be to mention the
> prism of the IGF, some see it as a policy body some see it as a
> conference, some want concrete outcomes and others are happy to let it
> be just a forum where diverse stakeholders can come together.
>
> The attacks on the APRIGF Chair were totally uncalled for and so was
> the alleged stereotyping...this is not the place for personal attacks.
Sala,
I note that this email is written in your official capacity as
co-coordinator. Pl clarify what you call as 'the attacks on APIGF chair'
because you are presumably talking about me here.
The below is my version of what happened.
I made a public interest exposure of a problematic fund raising document
of the local IGF organising committee. This document was spoken of later
by the MAG chair (of UN IGF) in terms of 'commercialisation of the IGF'
and fully disapproved (in fact, he has already asked the committee to
remove it). The exposure led to discussions both inside and outside this
group, and also in the MAG.... As a result of this exposure, the
document was hurriedly taken off the host country IGF website. The
ensuing discussions, in many spaces,, in my humble opinion, must have
significantly contributed to establishing/ strengthening norms against
commercialisation or corporatisation of the IGF. I dont know what you
think of it, but I think that these are a set of considerable
achievements, which happened only because the initial exposure took
place. (I have no intention to blow my own trumpet, but neither can I
take lying down such concerted targeting for having undertaken a public
interest work.)
When the exposure was first made, two persons associated with organising
the UN IGF and a chair of a regional IGF said, quickly one after the
other, that there was nothing new with such an approach - which, in the
circumstances, I take to mean there was really nothing terribly wrong
with it. Paul, the mentioned AP IGF Chair, went further to explain that
he considers it just an innocent act to "attract funding by providing
some traditional "value" back to contributors". 'There is nothing wrong
with it' was written all over these responses. The person making the
exposure would obviously take issue with such 'defences', which would
have the effect of stopping in its track the process of exposure and
demand for amendments. What else do you expect him to do. Be cowered down?
I expressed deep disappointment at the fact that prominent people with
official roles in managing IGF are taking such a position. I also
expressed further disappointment that regional IGF head could say that
there is nothing new or wrong with such an approach, which I took as an
indication that the malaise of accepting commercialisation of policy
spaces has really gone deep.
Please explain to me where is a personal attack here...
I see your 'judgement' as taking sides in the important exchange as
above between someone who made an important public interest exposure,
and those who defended the problematic actions as nothing new or nothing
wrong.... .
I further take your above judgement to, willy nilly, be causing a
chilling effect vis a vis engagement with certain kinds of issues on
this list. It seems that certain biggies of multistakeholder power
structures are not to be pulled into any argument and counter-view
making here..... You are stopping me from discussing an issue which i
consider to be among those of the highest importance to safeguarding
democracy, which I do consider threatened by certain versions of MSism.
I await you clarification. Since you make this judgement in your
official capacity, unless you withdraw it, I mean to take it to the
appeals committee.
(BTW, perhaps you did not read all emails as you say you were out, but
try reading those from Anriette, Suresh and Avri.)
Also, please clarify what is the 'alleged stereo-typing' that you have
judged as uncalled for.....
(BTW, I have long standing differences with the organisers of AP IGF on
somewhat connected issues which I have often discussed with them.
Because of these differences I have not attended the last few AP IGFs
despite invitations. Your email/ judgement has the effect of suppressing
my dissent on this count. This is not acceptable. As an aside, I must
say, however, that things are improving with the AP IG, and so is my
engagement. Just my view.)
parminder
> Let's keep the discussions professional and it is really great to see
> some of the considerations come up but by now we expect a level of
> maturity that accepts that we will always have people who do not think
> like us and frankly we do not expect them too.
>
> Once a point has been made, it is an " overkill" to continue to hammer
> them down our throats. I apologise for the delayed response, have been
> reading these but without a chance to respond as I was with
> intermittent access as I was in the Cook Islands. I am now in Niue and
> have time to respond better.
>
> Sala T
>
> (Co-coordinator)
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 08/04/2013 6:33 AM (GMT+05:30)
>> To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' <suresh at hserus.net
>> <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>>,'George Sadowsky'
>> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 08/04/2013 5:30 AM (GMT+05:30)
>> To: 'George Sadowsky' <george.sadowsky at gmail.com
>> <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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>[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
>> <mailto: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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130804/68a55445/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list