[governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting)

[Norbert Bollow]

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > in order to perhaps explain better where I'm coming from... what
> > we're doing in developing an IGC "written contribution", especially
> > during the consensus process phase, is part of what the IGC mission
> > statement calls "representation of civil society contributions in
> > Internet governance processes"... I would suggest that if you want
> > to be part of a group representing civil society in any topic area,
> > you need to be deeply immersed in civil society thinking
> 
> Please define this "civil society thinking".

Ok, here's how I see this…

The Council of Europe's Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation
in the Decision-Making Process
<https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM%282009%29148> has what is IMO a
good characterization of what I'd call “civil society organizations”,
calling them “NGOs”:

   “In relation to this Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation
   the term is taken to refer to organised civil society including
   voluntary groups, non-profit organisations, associations,
   foundations, charities, as well as geographic or interest-based
   community and advocacy groups. The core activities of NGOs are
   focused on values of social justice, human rights, democracy and the
   rule of law. In these areas the purpose of NGOs is to promote causes
   and improve the lives of people.”

There are also individuals engaging with the same kind of motivation.

These civil society organizations and like-minded individuals interact
with each other and form a community.

In this community there is a continuum of more or less broadly shared
assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitute a way of
viewing reality, and of thinking about how to engage to improve it.

That continuum is what I mean with "civil society thinking".

>  in that topic area. Of course
> > it is possible to achieve this kind of immersion while having a
> > different (typically, non civil society) day job during which one
> > works in a different topic area. I don't believe that it is
> > possible to be in such a way immersed in civil society thinking in
> > a topic area while at the same time representing business interests
> > in the same topic area.
> 
> What if the business interests exactly coincide with CS interests in
> that topic area.

Even then I would argue that the distinction between CS representatives
and business representatives should be maintained.

For example how would you determine in the first place whether business
interests and CS interests coincide in a given topic area? I don't think
that this can possibly be done unless the CS representatives go about
figuring out what the "CS interests" are in a way that is reasonably
independent of business representatives.

That said, it is not really possible to divide the world neatly into
any of the various categorizations of stakeholder groups. For example,
where to put social entrepreneurship?

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- 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