[governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words"

Suresh Ramasubramanian suresh at hserus.net
Wed Aug 14 06:48:36 EDT 2013 

If I might extend Daniel's dog and caravan analogy - if the barking dog actually belongs to the caravan, and if it barks at a genuine threat, it doesn't get ignored.  

Its master looks around to see what caused the barking - a thief rather than a stray cat?  And dogs that bark "appropriately" get listened to, and their barkign valued, compared to those that bark at stray cats or at other dogs in the caravan.

The same analogy applies -

1. Do we refuse to engage in a parallel multistakeholder process - which icann most definitely is - and criticize it from the outside?

2. Do we engage within the icann process and raise our voices for valid and legitimate concerns that the rest of the stakeholder community within icann recognizes and shares? (as in, a thief rather than a stray cat or caravan dog - both of which we might detest, but only one of which is genuinely significant to the caravan, something that the caravan's other members care about)

3. What is our bark rate, sorry, hit rate - how often do we raise our voices for infighting and to score political points over perceived rivals rather than partners, compared to making informed policy comments based on principled stands?  

--srs (iPad)

On 14-Aug-2013, at 16:01, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Daniel, 
> 
> Glad to see a post of yours. Long time no see. 
> 
> Comments inline on your useful and argumented post:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:
>> 
>> First of all, the process of slow deterioration of the good spirit is NOT the product of one person expression but the result of an interaction with other person’s expression and I do not think I have to offer names, if your memory of the co-co's actions is neat.
> 
> Agreed. The blame is shared. I never put it on one person, just reacted in one specific instance.
>> 
>> Second, and much more important, what is at stake behind this situation is NOT a mere question of people style; in the background, there is a profound issue of the role of civil society in Internet Governance.
> 
> Agreed too and well put. This is a useful reframing to move forward in this discussion. See below.
>> 
>> I consider myself that a good provision of "constructive provocation" is an intrinsic part of my civil society role
> 
> You use yourself the expression "constructive provocation" and I am completely in agreement with you in that regard. Because the expression covers our respective concerns: your fear of anesthesia (the need for provocation) and my mourning of respectful engagement. 
> 
> Boy, do I like a good controversy: it is the only way to have all sides of an issue, to think deeply, to be forced to reevaluate your own assumptions and prejudices, to potentially reframe a debate (as we are doing here) and move towards a solution. This is what Parliaments were established for: light through debate.   
> 
> But how controversy unfolds and how people behave is what makes the provocation "constructive" - or not. Judging arguments by their own merit and not in relation to who emits them; fighting courageously for what one thinks is right and true until one convinces others - but also accepting to be convinced in return by better arguments; not being afraid to stand up when in the minority but accepting ultimate consensus even against oneself; feeling free to criticize the actions of others but on the basis of fact and not allegations; this is the core of the participatory democratic spirit. It is in my view indissociable from the multi-stakeholder approach the way I see it.  
>   
>> and I have been worried for years in this forum to perceive a clear trend of anesthesia of the discourse of civil society, for the sake of allowing  multistakeholderism to perform smoothly. I have been (and I am still) quite worried that this trend will not transform us (organized civil society) in the unwilling accomplices of many bad actions performed in our field.
> 
> I understand your feeling but it actually connects with the role of this list as opposed to more advocacy ones. The IGC Charter says:
> 
> The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.
>  
> The value of this list has always resided in the diversity of its members. This means that by definition, positions are different and statements are more nuanced than those that can be developed by very focused and like-minded smaller groups. The IGC is a place to expose people to ideas that they would not hear otherwise, a place for debate on substance, even without conclusion. It is not only where statements are drafted, but also a great place to share statements drafted elsewhere, to invite people to subscribe to them. "Coordination of advocacy" does not mean that all civil society advocacy should come from the IGC.
> 
> There is no such thing as THE position of civil society. We are diverse - and should remain so. If statements seems too neutral, it is not because of timidity or the desire to placate the powers that be, but because the group is large and diverse. And to be frank, a lot of people on the list have probably accepted IGC public positions that are stronger than their personal views.
> 
>> 
>> It is enough to see the sweetness of the IGF statements in situation like PRISM, compared to other groups, to assess this point.
>> 
>> The main reason I am more a lurker than a contributor in this forum is to be found there (and not in the fact that some discussion get heated). The main reason why Funredes has resigned recently from APC membership (without loosing respect and good relationships) is also to be found here (my analysis is that the price to pay in silencing and smoothing our critics has gotten too high).
>> 
>> Is it not a risky game to accept to be so polite that we loose our soul; shall we resist to such level of politeness? I tend to answer yes at the light of the evolution of the Internet.
>> 
>> What is at stake here and the fractures which are underlying are not details of Internet history and too much naivety may turned to become a crime against virtual humanity; the role of ICANN, the need to see the historical grab of US in Internet governance evolve, the appropriate balance of security and privacy, the implication of the dominant economical model that –mainly- Google has imposed based uniquely in advertisements and the terrible consequences in our privacy and comfort which are hardly evocated here, the difficulty of the requirements on multilingualism to get accepted in spite of a more accommodating discourse...
>> 
>> When in last IGF meeting, in Baku, I felt the role of civil society was starting to blur and I got quite worried to see ICANN implementing a totally artificial (and super expensive) economical model for domain names and the appearing passivity of my civil society colleagues. Our proactivity and capacity to resist seemed to have decline so much.
>> 
>> As a mental reaction, I develop a cartoon in my mind that I resisted to share at that time (in order to keep polite and avoid embarrassing my civil society colleagues) but I will now as a reaction against the attempt to definitively shut up provocation.
>> 
>> I will, not only for this episode of apparent consensus against one of the more provocative civil society voice of this forum, but also because I have been so disappointed that the opportunity of the moment when the Balis's meeting was jeopardized was not used to ask the real questions for this group but instead to demonstrate the typical homeostasis syndrome of groups who must keep existing the same way just because they have existed so far).
>> 
>> The cartoon is based on the Arab proverb that is quite famous: the dogs bark and the caravan passes (the trigger may habe been a wonderful restaurant in the old town named Caravanseray :-)).
>> 
>> Imagine a long road heading to a big tower of dollars, not so far away in the perspective. Imagine a caravan named ICANN. Imagine a bunch of dogs marked IGF which are barking between them and around the caravan. Imagine the caravan does not care at all and keep passing towards the big money...
>> We can also use the image with US government in the caravan and PRISM at the end of the road.
>> 
>> Sorry if my words will disturb many of you but it feels so good to be provocative again. :-)
> 
> No problem with this "provocation". These are actually very valid - and substantive - questions, spotting potential dangers or evolutions that people may not agree with. In particular, ICANN is a complex machinery and still a laboratory of multi-stakteholder governance. Issues like risk of capture(s) by one constituency or another, the tension between a corporate vs a regulatory role, or how to ensure the defense of the global public interest, just to name a few, are necessary substantial debates. We need to have them.
> 
> Actually, the launch of the new gTLD program will require a deep examination of its impact on the structures and processes of ICANN. Whether we call it ICANN 3.0 or not does not matter. What will be needed is engagement in the discussion that will necessarily take place in the coming years. 
> 
> I hope the IGC list will be a place where these topics are discussed, to provide input into the broader debate. But this requires organization of the discussion, framing of the questions in a way that is acceptable by all, and management of threads with respected neutral sheperds to keep them on track and allow mutually respectful exchanges. This is the responsibility of the co-coordinators and I'm sure they will see the potential for increasing the relevance of the list's contribution to the global debate. 
> 
> Thanks again for the constructive provocation. Not sure I appeased your concerns but I honestly tried :-)
> 
> Best
> 
> Bertrand
> 
> 
>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net)
> Member, ICANN Board of Directors 
> 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")
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130814/f3a794c7/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