[governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment

[Mawaki Chango]

All,

Thank you George that your insightful piece and analysis, and the spirit of
it all. My comment will be on the composition of the CS preceded with a few
considerations about the evolution of the population of the WSIS-CS ecology
(eco-nomy?) as reflected from participation in our discussions here.

It is clear that the initial multistakeholder partition in the WSIS process
(which was also associated with the positive idea that for the first time
CS was being formally recognized as full participant in what would
otherwise have been an intergovernmental process) followed by a lengthy
transition/resolution of the core issues that emerged during that process
has only and regrettably increased the silo effect. It has become basically
a turf war. It would be very, very interesting to be able to study the
evolution of this ecosystem through the composition of the population
involved from 2003 prepcoms and Geneva summit to date. I suspect part of
the increased demarcations may come from (this is an hypothesis) massive
engagement of professional/organized CS in this specific space post-Geneva,
which has kept increasing since and to the WCIT apex so far. I am certainly
not implying this is a bad thing, but at the same time it may have
heightened the questions of representation and legitimacy, and even brought
them front and center, with the temptation to push back against the
technical community, probably because, first, those are two distinct
professions with different ways and cultures. In addition, the technical
community (TC) is naturally positioned as internet professionals and have
already been assuming some authority from their expertise in the workings
of the internet, and as a result they might supposedly overshadow classical
organized CS in their effort to find/open a space where they can discuss
and advocate rights as they know how to, without technical issues (and dare
I say other champions) getting in the way.

I personally understood and learned a lot more from this list before Tunis
when people with technical knowledge engaged more than since with
remarkable shifts in the population of this ecosystem. Of course, advocacy
need to be done on plain social values and norms as well, and it helps
significantly to have experienced CS advocates involved in doing that. But
I certainly do not see it as an overall gain if they or their style should
exclusively take over the identity of this community (notwithstanding the
fact that the community in question is called CS.)

Speaking of which, we always have to remember that if CS means anything at
all, then it is necessarily plural. It's not only the "rest of us" but it
is also "most of us" on this earth. Based not on any conceptualization/
theorizing but on simple observation of the reality of this community of
practice, CS encompasses at least 4 things/groups/categories of
participants/"identities."

1. free citizens and internet users constitute a significant element of the
CS
2. free citizens and internet users organized in social movements or into
legal entities are part of CS
3. professionals involved in the existence and/or functioning of the
"thing" (here the internet), a.k.a TC, are also part of CS
4. another category of professionals doing research and building up
knowledge either on the "thing" itself or on its intersection with society,
being able to inform policy with insights and evidence which research can
best afford --in a nutshell, academics and other researchers by trade or
profession.

Again, I am drawing the above groups of participants simply based on my
observation of what has been happening in this milieu and I do not pretend
to say what ought to be (for instance, whether it would be legitimate or
not to add another category or actors, but at least the above 4 have been
involved and have earned their place under the CS banner.) The fact of
calling some of them "professionals" does not imply any judgement, neither
against them nor against the other participants (who most probably also are
professionals in other fields or manners.) That designation simply relates
to the field of the "thing" at hand or the social goals we as CS want to
achieve about it. Also, the fact that some are organized and others are
not, the fact that some have the privilege to be in job positions where
they can spend a large amount of their working time to get better prepared
and more effective at working on our collective concerns while others don't
does not make them more legitimate CS than the others.

So IMHO whenever we want to be representative or talk about (our)
legitimacy not only would we be ill-advised to exclude any one of the above
4 categories, but we will be precisely less legitimate not to make a
conscious effort to include in our selections participants who are
generally recognized as elements from these groups. More specifically we
have to guard ourselves from the drift which seems to be happening right
now in my view, with the implication that CS is only organized CS (whether
it includes professionals from research/academic institutions or not.)

In that spirit I welcome the initiative that George is proposing, and look
forward to welcoming an even more direct engagement between all groupings
and elements of CS.

Thanks,

Mawaki


-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mawaki Chango, PhD
Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting
http://www.digilexis.com
m.chango at digilexis.com
https://twitter.com/digilexis
https://twitter.com/dig_mawaki
Mobile: +225 4448 7764
Skype: digilexis


On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> Mike, one of the times when I agree with you a lot, and ++1 to George's
> note below.
>
> Your perspective is valuable here because of a technical background and
> even more, experience in hands on ict4d in community informatics.  But that
> makes you part of a relative minority in civil society that tends to
> frequent wsis.
>
> The technical community is cross border and not all of the members of that
> community either represent their employers, or are even from countries or
> employers where snowden would be relevant as a supposed negative factor to
> weigh against them,  also, don't these disagreements and the steady erosion
> of engagement between the two communities (or parts of civil society)
> predate snowden,  a lot?
>
> Even predate wsis to some minor extent though as you say wsis and petty
> arguments about time at the mike etc. as for Internet justice it sometimes
> means choosing battles you can gain consensus on to address first, that may
> lead to some worth, even highly important causes pushed on the back burner
> unless they get consensus from, and are advocated consistently, by
> organizations across stakeholder groups.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 25-Nov-2013, at 0:11, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks George for a very sober, serious, insightful and dare I say
> generous piece.  And there is little there that I disagree with including
> your overall aspirations for and comments on civil society.
>
>
>
> There are however, two issue themes that aren`t included in your
> discussion which come from two separate pieces of my own personal ecology
> in these matters that I feel have to be addressed if we are to get to the
> space that you are urging us toward.
>
>
>
> The first is that you don`t mention Snowden or what we have learned (or
> perhaps for some, found to be confirmed) through his actions. What we have
> seen in the starkest of terms in the Snowden documents is how important
> `control` over the Internet is seen in some quarters, and to what lengths
> those quarters and presumably others will go to ensure their `dominance` in
> matters having to do with how the Internet is deployed and used.  Your
> technical community colleagues have characterized this as an ``attack`` on
> the Internet.  From my perspective I see it as a full-on attempt to subvert
> the Internet in support of certain interests—and at this point it is
> unclear whether those interests are national security, national strategic,
> economic, political or some seamless integration of all of these.
>
>
>
> Among the most damaging outcomes from Snowden is a general breakdown in
> trust (or confirmation of the reasons for an on-going lack of trust)
> concerning I would say, all matters having to do with the core elements of
> the Internet of which certainly, Internet governance is one. Again your
> technical community colleagues well recognize this development (as of
> course does the Business Community) and the extremely corrosive and
> destructive elements that this lack of trust has introduced into what had
> previously been on-going collaborative relationships of all sorts with
> respect to Internet related activities.  This lack of trust is certainly no
> less in Civil Society (and dare I say no less warranted) than for the other
> stakeholder groups and given the lack of normative coherence and even of a
> shared self- definition that we witness in Civil Society discussions on a
> daily basis it is perhaps even more explicable for CS, even if no less
> damaging.
>
>
>
> I don`t know what to do about this. Perhaps given the lack of resources
> for facilitating the kinds of (generally face to face and purpose driven)
> encounters in neutral disinterested spaces that are usually involved in
> `trust building` perhaps nothing can be done, but I do know that not facing
> the issue of trust directly and recognizing it in its full (and very ugly)
> reality means I think that it is more or less impossible to go forward in
> the ways that you are not unreasonably suggesting.
>
>
>
> The second issue that I would want to add to your commentary is a
> different one and comes from quite a different background.  Many here began
> this particular odyssey in relation one way or another to WSIS.  And
> certainly for me working in the grassroots use and among grassroots users
> of ICTs, WSIS was the doorway into these broader Internet Governance
> concerns.
>
>
>
> Notably, many in CS see WSIS as a significant success and one whose gains
> they currently appear reluctant to put in jeopardy by re-opening those
> discussions. I see it rather differently in that for me WSIS was largely a
> continuation of the pattern of top-down processes (the DotForce, the ICT4D
> Task Force etc.etc.) trying to solve ICT for Development issues without
> giving those most directly involved a chance to participate and provide
> their own insight into these matters. Few (if any) of the organizations
> (including it must be said the CS organizations) most directly involved
> with WSIS were in fact, in a position to give voice to the concerns of the
> grassroots users or activists/practitioners and unfortunately the train of
> failed ICT4D policies and programs (and more recently the quite evident
> donor fatigue with these failed programs) is a direct result.
>
>
>
> I believe even my first intervention into the IG discussion space
> articulated much of the above and very very regrettably I see little if
> any, progress having been made in the activities and interventions which
> have followed.  Rather I see the matters which would be of greatest
> interest to grassroots users and communities perhaps characterized best
> through the term ``Internet Justice*`` derided, marginalized and ignored;
> even dare I say, to the extent that a number of CS groups appear to be
> opposing a revisiting of WSIS specifically because issues relating to
> Internet Justice might be introduced including by the G77.
>
>
>
> I think it would be very desirable for CS broadly to move in the
> directions indicated in George`s piece below but only if done in full
> recognition, awareness and responsiveness to the issues that I have just
> attempted to articulate.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>  *Notably the term ``Internet Justice`` follows on from our Environmental
> CS colleagues who are now characterizing much of their concerns under the
> rubric of ``Environmental Justice``.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com<george.sadowsky at gmail.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 8:59 AM
> *To:* michael gurstein
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Peter Ian; Salanieta T.
> Tamanikaiwaimaro
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a
> multi-stakeholder environment
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> *Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions
> and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated.*
>
>
>
> I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's
> suggestions and my response.
>
>
>
> Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would
> balk at that, and for good reason.  Instead, I'll just be somewhat more
> active on this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical
> community that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal
> basis, I'll try to do that.
>
>
>
> So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if
> any of them resonate with any of you.
>
>
>
> *First*, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder
> approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet
> technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent
> classical civil society concerns.  As I recall in the 1990s, these
> communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet
> encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to
> explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits.
>
>
>
> The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS
> process, caused informal differences to formalize.  Issues of
> representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes
> competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while
> informal discussion gradually declined.  Polarization of opinion grew as
> willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree
> suffered.
>
>
>
> *Second*, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical
> community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the
> MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood.  At this point in its
> evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels.  In order
> to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with
> Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good
> technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a
> detailed level.  The primary role of representatives of the Internet
> technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand
> such effects and to inform those deliberating about them.  That function
> may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and
> suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health,
> either short or long term, or both.
>
>
>
> In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it
> is extremely important.
>
>
>
> *Third*, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism
> appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating
> groups of ideas.  A couple of examples illustrate the point.  To the extent
> that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well
> to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of
> civil society benefit and should encourage their participation.
>  Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are
> people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent
> with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives.
> The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that
> minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding
> issues by separating people into different silos.  So instead of
> recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on
> inter-stakeholder group separation.
>
>
>
> *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 conclude* that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be
> an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative
> externalities that serve to keep us apart.  We need to assess the
> multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind  If it is retained as an
> organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative
> effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects
> of that approach.
>
>
>
> This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me
> to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic
> relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and
> technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet.  Thank
> you for taking the time to read it.  I realize that what I have written,
> and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have
> presented above.  However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas
> that I think may be useful.  The more nuanced discussion can and will come
> later.
>
>
>
> Your comments are welcome.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition.
>
>
>
> But I must say that I’m unclear as to precisely what role is being
> suggested here.  If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices
> being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the
> community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be
> more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community
> I think that is very useful.
>
>
>
> If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less
> “authoritative”/designated “filter” of communications/voices from Civil
> Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable
> difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern
> within certain CS elements of being “silenced/ignored”.
>
>
>
> (The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as
> being more of an “honest broker”—i.e. the question being, particularly on
> the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the “brokerage”
> committed/able to be.
>
>
>
> Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how
> you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role
> (and perceive it from a CS perspective).
>
>
>
> (I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active
> in the Community Informatics community would, by their background,
> qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being
> “techies” of one sort or another.  Whether they would qualify as being
> members of the “Technical Community” (TC) under what I understand to be the
> criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC
> structures I’m not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical
> design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social
> justice.)
>
>
>
> Best to all,
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [
> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *George Sadowsky
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM
> *To:* Ian Peter
> *Cc:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and
> need for IGC and civil society Liaisons
>
>
>
> Hi, Ian,
>
>
>
> Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires.  Perhaps I can
> clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing.
>
>
>
> There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community
> and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society.
>  Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled
> rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of
> the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion
> and/or discontent.  I think that Sala thought that having some announced or
> implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at
> times.  I thought so, too.
>
>
>
> Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea
> isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented,
> and I can understand that.  I think that perhaps I could be more active
> from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to
> bridge some differences between the communities.  Although I consider
> myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I
>  do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with
> some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> <<trimmed>>
> >
>
>
>
> <<trimmed>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131125/5f897485/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