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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

In my case, my activism so far has been on good antispam laws and on 
public / isp education on Internet security. Here, funnily enough, my 
interests and views are actually congruent to the interests and views 
of my current and past employers on a number of occasions. Though I 
obviously leave my work affiliation behind me when I participate 
anywhere in my personal capacity

--srs (htc one x)



On 17 February 2013 1:44:17 AM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> My own opinion on this would be that folks such as you are describing would
> in fact need to become somewhat pro-active to be "of" civil society --
> whether they joined a specific group would depend on the circumstances. But
> if they were concerned that certain norms were being expressed (for example
> anti-stalking) or that normative based actions (anti-stalking measures) were
> being proceeded with they would probably need to become part of some "group"
> or other. However, the specifics of that "becoming part of" or of those
> particular "groups" would vary dramatically all the way from "likes" on a
> Facebook group to joining issue based organizations/demo's etc.etc.
>
> As for the person from the industry group... as I understood it, he was
> arguing that as a citizen he was "in" civil society at least for part of his
> personal "situationalization" (grr... not a good word but I can't think of
> another at the moment...
>
> The question of his being "of" civil society really came down to whether
> there was a personal normative alignment with his articulation of, and
> identification with his corporate interests (wearing his corporate
> situationalization hat) or with his "interests" as a citizen, wearing
> another hat.
>
> Personally, at this point I would see whether someone was able and willing
> to, for example, sign on to the normative (and programmatic) positions as
> articulated by CS in WSIS 2003 and WSIS 2005 as a reasonable indication of
> whether they were in alignment with CS in the IG space i.e. whether they
> were "of" CS in the IG space. If yes, "yes", if no, "no"... (and for the
> record, I see updating and adapting those normative (and programmatic
> positions) as being the primary mission for CS going forward at least to
> WSIS 2015).
>
> Others may (and very likely will) want to develop their own normative
> position going forward toward WSIS 2015 (without an initial agreement to
> align themselves with CS WSIS 2003 and 2005) or whatever, and they may also
> choose to call their postioning as CS, and who is to stop them; but for the
> purposes of my own activities in this area that is how I will look to
> proceed.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:13 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
> consultation and MAG meeting)
>
> In message <00ef01ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>, at 09:52:11 on Sat,
> 16 Feb 2013, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes
> >To be a wee bit philosophical here... We should probably be talking
> >about those who are "in" CS (as for example, as a descriptive category
> >for those not in government, business etc.etc.) in contrast with those who
> are "of" CS (i.e. those who have ascribed themselves or could be ascribed to
> sharing/advocating in support of some set of normative principles/values
> associated with CS...
> >
> >In this determination, "stalkers" could be seen as "in" CS without
> >necessarily be "of" CS (unless there was a grouping supporting "stalker
> >rights" as part of a large CS rights and principles initiative :)
>
> I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but how does it work in
> practice?
>
> Recently a contributor here who is "in" a trade association was in effect
> accused of being inextricably "of" that trade association (although he very
> plausibly denied it).
>
> On the other hand, we all know about the professional difficulty Government
> employees have with trying to express "a personal view"
> divorced from their day-job.
>
> The group of people I'm trying to place somewhere within the eco-system are
> those "in" civil society who have been affected by "something bad happening
> on the Internet". Do they have to join some sort of lobbying group in order
> to become "of" something, and is that something within Civil Society, or one
> of the other stakeholder groups (if the latter, which...)?
> --
> Roland Perry
>
>
>



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