[governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps)
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Tue Dec 10 17:48:32 EST 2013
Hi All,
George does not need to defend himself nor any of his roles as he is as legitimately a part of us. Why George will always have my respect is because he is one of the most down to earth, human beings that participate in Internet. governance policy shaping in diverse foras and has been doing so for many years now. I can still clearly recall when the matter of the new gTLDs were put to the vote, George was the only one with the foresight, long range vision stemming from wisdom and years of experience who was able to say, the time is not ready as things need to be ironed out first and vocalised issues important to civil society proponents.
Today, in retrospect, whilst he was the minority on the Board, he was able to bring a diversity of view that needed to be accounted for in the final consideration. He is like a Lord Denning in the Internet circles, and offers real time pragmatic perspectives whilst engaging in debates. This is not to say that the rest of the. board, were wrong as they each bring their own unique strength and approach. One of the hardest things to do in leadership roles, is to have the strength of character to speak to the issues without it getting caught up in the political insinuations, camps or loyalties. Voices like George is very important in the diverse policy shaping foras. As proponents of global public interest, we need to be able to dissect the issues and see how it impacts our communities in a way that does not compromise values.
Best Regards,
Sala
Sent from my iPad
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> George,
>
> I am putting a final hand to my next hufpost and will provide the link once it is online. It will also include a link to the full transcript - was a bit of work for a Continental European like me to get through Alejandro's speedy Mexican English. No offense, just a bit of a hard time to be as precise as possible.
>
>
> JC
>
>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 22:33, George Sadowsky a écrit :
>>
>> I typed too quickly. I meant to type "I am on the ICANN Board." I thought that it was rather well known. But whatever I post on these lists is my own personal opinion. I think that's well understood also.
>>
>> I have also been on this list for the last 10 years, and at that time I was running Internet policy projects in transition countries, mostly in the former Soviet Union. See http://www.georgesadowsky.org/.
>>
>> I clearly was at ICANN 48 but don't remember Alejandro's intervention. If it was at the Open Forum, I was involved in a couple of urgent side conversations, and I did leave the room at some point. Maybe it's just my faulty memory. If it occurred elsewhere, I was not in that session. Then again, I had had a long talk with Alejandro during the week, and perhaps I just wasn't listening well.
>>
>> I don't understand your Disneyland comment, but I want to comment on your "circle" allusion. I don't stand in one circle. I consult (small business), sometimes I consult for government (government), I am a technologist (technical) and I've been involved in a variety of economic and social development initiatives (civil society). Parts of me are in all circles, and to be identified with only one circle deforms who I am -- just like the stakeholder framework encourages us to be in silos. I wrote a post several weeks ago on this subject that you may not have seen; I'll send you a copy off list.
>>
>> So I'm waiting to receive the text that you are referring to. Perhaps if it's not too long you could just post it to the list so that everyone could make their own judgment?
>>
>> George
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for informing those who didn't know about your ICANN relationship/link/... We might see in a near future, more clarity about who's who in the different circles. Internet Governance is not about going to Disneyland, giving smiles around at each other while gently spending money -for those who have some- and thinking that we live in a "ouin-ouin" world.
>>>
>>> Do you mean you were attending ICANN48, but did not participate to that session? Which then makes sense ("I did not hear him"). What Alejandro said was probably one of the greatest moment of the meeting. Unavoidable.
>>>
>>> But again, if we understand Alejandro, please no single definition, no single issue... What's about terminology? This is not really what is at stake here. What will be the next governance? That is the main concern and this is what needs to be urgently addressed and forwarded to the Brazilian meeting. And governance means some sort of political will, clarity, and "program".
>>>
>>> JC
>>>
>>>
>>>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 20:08, George Sadowsky a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Full disclosure: I am on the ICANN but I post my own opinions.
>>>>
>>>> I was there, but did not hear him. Do you have a link to the transcript file? Also, any comments on the larger question of terminology?
>>>>
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Georges,
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these.
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS, to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a 2014-discussion. Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did it from his own initiative. All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope this helps us to stay finely tuned and with wide open eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's "call a cat a cat" as we say here.
>>>>>
>>>>> JC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 19:18, George Sadowsky a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>>>>>> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he
>>>>>>> is a valued part of CS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS
>>>>>>> extends far beyond the confines of this caucus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]:
>>>>>>>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only
>>>>>>>>>> Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in
>>>>>>>>>> the global technical community, for example he has served three
>>>>>>>>>> terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board
>>>>>>>>>> of Trustees)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as
>>>>>>>>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this
>>>>>>>> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part
>>>>>>>> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly
>>>>>>>> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for
>>>>>>>> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't
>>>>>>>> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being
>>>>>>>> indicative in one way or the other!)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are at
>>>>>>>>>> minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when
>>>>>>>>>> looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What exactly is shocking?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that
>>>>>>>> Jean-Christophe has quoted
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the
>>>>>>>>>> engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which
>>>>>>>>>> they're working
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words,
>>>>>>>> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics
>>>>>>>>>> that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective
>>>>>>>>>> influence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this
>>>>>>>>>> kind of tactics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society
>>>>>>>>>> networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being
>>>>>>>>>> an effective civil society voice
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where
>>>>>>>> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under
>>>>>>>> discussion, are tactical in nature though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the insult.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131211/139a4d0a/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