[governance] How to address political economy issues? (was Re: Internet as a commons/public good)

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi,

Avri, what do you mean by "they have been forward in such a caustic way" -
by "they" are you referring to the issues on social and economic justice or
something else, and what do you mean by the whole sentence? Thanks

mawaki


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I support the view Norbet puts forward. And I believe the IGC can achieve
> rough consensus on advocacy for many civil society positions and proposals.
>  And I see no harm in putting out signatory based statements when rough
> consensus can't be found.
>
> Personally I could even line up behind advocacy on some, maybe even many,
> issues on social and economic justice. But they have been forward in such a
> caustic way of late there is no way I, personally, will align with those
> proposals, or encourage their proponents.
>
> I see Bestbits as a way to bring together people who focus their efforts
> in a variety of groups.  As such it makes sense as a signatory group.  IGC
> is a group of individuals not an aggregator of civil society groups as
> Bestbits is attempting to be; and I believe that if we ever leave the era
> of bullying we will once again be able to find rough consensus in IGC on
> many progressive topics.
>
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Talking and articulating positions can be done here, even if the
> >> resulting statements do not reach consensus or rough consensus.
> >>
> >> If there is a desire for IGC to set up an infrastructure for
> >developing
> >> advocacy statements beyond what IGC is able to agree on by consensus
> >> or rough consensus (I'm thinking of sign-on statements that would
> >> have the support of some subset of the IGC members), I don't see any
> >> reason why that couldn't be done. In fact this might be the best
> >> possible interpretation of what the IGC mission statement says about
> >> providing a forum for advocacy.
> >It is fine if this is the interpretation of what IGC is, not much of an
> >
> >advocacy group but a kind of an open platform or forum for civil
> >society
> >groups. And I am increasingly inclined or maybe resigned to this
> >perspective. But that still begs an organised constituency and group at
> >
> >the global level that can systematically deal with Internet governance
> >issues pertaining to social and economic justice. This is the gap that
> >I
> >spoke about in my previous email.
> >
> >parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Norbert
> >>
>
> ~~~
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130504/e0f02b86/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