[governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees

David Cake dave at difference.com.au
Fri Dec 27 00:40:59 EST 2013 

On 26 Dec 2013, at 3:27 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> David,
> 
> I think there are two separate issues at play here and I may be at fault in
> conflating them (or perhaps you are...
> 
> Anyway, the first issue is whether the CI network should be allowed to join
> the CS "club" as represented by the CS "Coordinating Committee" -- the
> significance of which is the CC's establishment of "criteria" and selection
> of CS representatives for various representative positions... My note below
> on "clubbableness" was addressed, I believe quite correctly (and most
> certainly not by analogy)  to this matter.

	Well, the thread is clearly labelled as being about the Brazil meeting committees, and no one has mentioned the CI list but you, and then only as an addendum rather than in your main argument, so yes, I am wondering why you are conflating these two discussions. 
FWIW, I have no issue with the CI list being part of the CS group, but you seemed to be arguing for rather more than membership in various recent emails. 

> The second issue (or rather set of issues) is the manner of selection of
> those representatives including the (lack of a) transparent and accountable
> process for those selections (following directly from the illegitimacy of
> the processes referred to in #1 above), the magical creation (pulling out of
> thin air) of selection "criteria",

	Oh, I'm all in favour of transparency and accountability. But I was not disagreeing with the need for transparency and accountability, only suggesting that some of the suggested criteria were poorly designed if their goal is to strengthen CS involvement.. Active critique of poorly designed proposals is surely why we have accountability. If you want open discussion of the selection criteria, surely that includes critical comments? 

> the evident ad hominem-ness of those
> criteria and so on.

	Well, there certainly do seem to have been some ad hominem arguments made, certainly. 

> And as a matter of fact, it seems to me that given the
> current small clique nature of CS "governance" processes and
> participation--and its internal processes of self-selection and
> self-promotion, those doing the selecting at least are in fact
> "represent(ing) no more than their own small clique"... 

	That is not, in fact, clear to me at all. I know that from my active involvement in NCSG, while there are certainly a core group that know each other fairly well due to spending three ICANN meetings a year together (plus phone meetings, email lists, etc), that group is not unified in its policy positions by any means, and that there are many more participants in NCSG beyond that core group - and that is just one of the several groups represented in current civil society processes. Civil society groups such as the IGC and NCSG certainly appear to me to represent a broad network rather than a unified clique. 
	Perhaps your experience is different. 

> And you keep referring to minorities and small groups etc.  -- my point
> overall is that probably a majority of the global population would be
> included in what you are referring to as "their small fraction"...

	Many of the groups involved in CS work on issues of global relevance, such as human rights, free expression, or development. That those issues are of global relevance does not mean that their representatives constitute a global majority. This seems obvious, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. 
	
	
> Providing
> a means to give voice (or of course hopefully voices) to those interests is
> hardly something that should "not be listened to by anyone" except of
> course, for those who are directly benefiting from current circumstances and
> conditions.

	I was not suggesting that those issues are not of value - only that if you were appointed to a committee as a representative of cilvil society, and then declared that you had no interest in representing the majority of civil society groups, but only one specific group, that would seem to me to be handing other stakeholder groups an excuse for marginalisation. 
	Cheers
		David
	
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 1:24 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for
> nominations to Brazil meeting committees
> 
> MIchael, this is a deeply faulty analogy. 
> No one is arguing that minority views should not be part of the 'civil
> society' club. Only that those selected as representatives of civil society
> are willing to act as representatives of the various diverging views of
> civil society - to use your analogy, that those selected to represent the
> club are willing to represent more than their own small clique among its
> members. 
> 
> If you honestly believe that we should select representatives of civil
> society who intend only to represent their small fraction - not only does
> this baffle me as a strategy, but I am quite baffled as to why those
> representatives would be listened to by anyone. 
> 	
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> On 25 Dec 2013, at 6:42 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> And since others from the "Civil Society Coordinating Committee" have
> peddling this line in this venue as well...
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 5:36 AM
>> To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'
>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to
> Brazil meeting committees
>> 
>> In England, where I spent some idle years pursuing an education they had a
> term--"clubbable"--what it meant was, whether you were suitable to be asked
> to "join the club"... 
>> 
>> Now among the overt criteria for being "clubbable" was of course, whether
> you were "nice" enough, whether you would fit in with the existing members,
> make them feel comfortable and all warm and cozy at and in your presence.
>> 
>> Of course what that really meant was whether you were sufficiently "like
> us" for them to let you into the club... whether you were the right colour,
> or the right gender, had gone to the right schools, were of an appropriate
> religion, and of course, overall whether your "politics/value system" would
> be such as to support the "club's" status quo--their perq's and privileges,
> folkways and prejudices...
>> 
>> Needless to say I was never "invited".
>> 
>> But I have to ask here, are you folks really serious about this--having as
> a criteria for joining a "Coordinating Committee" of "Civil Society" whether
> someone adheres to kindergarten rules of playing "nice"... 
>> 
>> If that is so then surely any right minded person would treat this
> self-selected grouping and this process with the contempt and derision it
> deserves.
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:24 PM
>> To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to
> Brazil meeting committees
>> 
>> [MG>] snipped...
>> 
>> So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also
> put in the criterion of "plays well with others."
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131227/6bf8e5d4/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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