[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

You wont have to defend yourself as I totally agree

Unfortunately it is a common sort of attitude among a section or minority 
of civil society

--srs (htc one x)



On 30 October 2013 9:54:44 AM Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net>wrote:
>
> > I think what Bill is saying is that there appears to be a refusal to
> > acknowledge the technical community as civil society or even
> > multistakeholder in nature, so that any outreach from them is characterized
> > as a power grab, and there appears to be a refusal to engage in their
> > processes.
> >
>
> I read the use of the phrase "power grab" (which I did not bring in the
> discussion) as an individual's assessment --hence, inevitably subjective
> somewhat-- of a *punctual* situation, not a characterization of everything
> a given stakeholder group is or does in this setting. Once it was used to
> characterize a behavior in a given context (and only in that context) the
> notion can be discussed, assumptions can be made or implications drawn
> based on its face value (after all the person making that assessment is not
> what you might particularly call an outlier in this group), or conversely
> it may be challenged --which is all good. That's part of the normal
> discussion, without anyone claiming that this is the definitive
> characterization of what a whole group of (necessarily diverse) human
> beings is all about.
>
> So now leaving the "power grab" meme aside (for now), I never seriously got
> into the discussion as to who is CS and who's not (I guess as a matter of
> principle, I must be cautious using the term "never" if only because
> computer memory has outpaced human memory in this day and age. But
> seriously, I never spent time on that as far as I can remember.) The way I
> see this --and please be mindful that this is not a theory or anything I
> need or want to get universal agreement on-- is that every natural person
> (as in the biological individual human beings) leaving among other human
> beings is part of CS *unless*... Unless they willingly take on the role to
> represent or be the agent of a non-natural person, whether it is the
> government apparatus or a private corporation or any legally incorporated
> collection of natural individuals (which raises the question of CS
> organizations I'll return to below.) In this case, it is preferably up to
> the individual to rally with the stakeholder group where his or her
> principal (organization of affiliation) belongs. Or alternatively, other
> people who feel the participation of any such individual(s) in CS processes
> may skew the outcomes, presumably toward the interests of their principal
> which are seen as not aligned with CS interests in the subject matter may
> bring up objections. At this point I have no clear cut guidance to offer as
> to how to handle objections and counter-objections of that kind. I just
> have a sense that if a voluntary resolution cannot be reached, then it one
> way or the other becomes a matter of common sense as well as the
> plausibility of presumptions and claims made by all involved, in the view
> of the public opinion. I guess what I am trying to say is that it will
> always be difficult to have an authoritative procedure to resolve this in a
> clean manner, if the parties are not willing to cooperate and be honest
> with themselves about the difference that there might be between their
> current motivations and the goals and interests of CS.
>
> I must immediately add that as we "practice" them, I agree that those
> identities are mostly artificial (or at least circumstantial) and as a
> result, they are inevitably shifting from a context to another for the same
> individual.
>
>
> >
> > Civil society being as amorphous as it is, there is absolutely no bar to
> > any caucus or combination of people forming with their own views and ideas
> > - the problem lies in objecting to other such groups forming, and calling
> > them power grabs.
> >
>
> In my view, it is the prerogative of any such groups to form, and they'd do
> so presumably whenever they have a distinct set of objectives or interests.
> They are entitled to advocate for their views and simply get down to work
> for their realization without being called "power grabs." I would assume it
> would take more than that (like for instance, a deliberate attempt to shun
> or overshadow other stakeholders) for anyone to call that power grab.
>
>
> > In such a case, is it to be implied that other sections of civil society
> > too are intent on their own such "power grabs" where they, not the people
> > over in the other "power grab" call the shots and drive their ideology?
> >
>
> Yes, no group has the monopoly of power grabs (reason why I rejected above
> the notion that it was a characterization or labeling of a particular
> stakeholder group as a whole.) CS may be subject to power grabs, too, as we
> are diverse and any subset of CS may be tempted to overly influence the
> process at the expense and sometimes at the exclusion of others.
>
> The notion of CS I have outlined above has not addressed the case of
> "professional" and organized CS (through registered/incorporated legal
> structures.) As organizations, they have their mission and their agenda,
> and there might be plenty of private citizens around the world who might
> not be interested by such mission and agenda or others may criticize them
> for not using the right methods to achieve the good they claim, etc. On the
> face value however, and using common sense, we do understand that there is
> a fundamental difference between, say, Human Right Watch or Doctors Without
> Borders or Bytes for All, etc. (my understanding of the latter being only
> based on their name, so I might be wrong, but please stay on the bigger
> picture), and, say, the International Association of Accountants or the
> American Association of Banks (may not be the exact names, but you
> understand my point... trade associations.) Maybe one way to put it is that
> any individual/private citizen who finds herself in the kind of situation
> the former type of organizations purport to improve may (I didn't say
> "will") benefit from their action without the said individual having to pay
> a fee or a due for that. Which is not to say they are not membership
> organizations with due paying members. But their actions are neither
> primarily nor exclusively motivated by the personal interests of their
> members, nor are they carried out for solely and directly in the interest
> of those individual members. So to the extent this information is
> available, mission, values, interests, goals, objectives as well as actual
> behaviors and actions matter in appreciating in every context what (or
> rather whom) CS entails. Hence, as said in another thread, the importance
> for IGC (or global CS in IG) to clearly formulate its mission/values/goals
> and its interests, etc.
>
> In sum, CS at least in a global context such as this one is a broad notion
> that must have room for many inevitably diverse actors, and be open enough
> for people to be able to go and come based on what matters to them at a
> given point in time. At the very least, I'd say it includes the following:
> individuals as private citizens (representing no other than themselves),
> organized CS as characterized above and individuals acting on their behalf,
> and other sub-culture groups (to mean a specialized subset, not anything
> secondary) such as academia and technical community. However, there will be
> times and contexts where those specialized subsets may have a distinctive
> enough identity (based on their goals and interests, etc.) to justify they
> stand as a distinct stakeholder group in their own right.
>
> I'd hope that, going forward and until further notice, the above have
> precedence on anything else one might interpret that I mean to say when
> discussing about Internet stakeholders, their relationship and their
> relevance from CS perspective, etc. Again, it is just my own pragmatic
> approach to the question, which is not informed by theory or research. So
> yeah, I might have said one or two things that someone would find
> inaccurate in which case I would be glad to be enlightened. But please
> don't have me to have to come up here and defend myself ;-) My 2 cents, and
> only that.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> >
> > That doesn't sound terribly conducive to any sort of consensus
> >
> > -suresh
> >
> > Mawaki Chango [24/10/13 09:50 +0000]:
> >
> >  Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Bill,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi
> >>> >
> >>> > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a
> >>> framing
> >>> > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one
> >>> group
> >>> > wishes to take at the expense of others.  Fadi went to Dilma, they
> >>> talked
> >>> > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully
> >>> agreed
> >>> > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get
> >>> > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include
> >>> people
> >>> > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the
> >>> desirable
> >>> > end states.  Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there
> >>> to
> >>> > voice your concerns.  If you decide you don't want to coordinate with
> >>> the
> >>> > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own
> >>> relationship
> >>> > to the Brazil meeting.  But surely that doesn't mean that those who do
> >>> > shouldn't be able to.
> >>>
> >>> Sums it up nicely.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved,
> >>> why do
> >>> > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded?
> >>>
> >>> good question!
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting about
> >> this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain?
> >> I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting
> >> "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past
> >> the
> >> initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint
> >> meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have
> >> different ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But
> >> frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct
> >> "relationship to the Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the
> >> most desirable and the latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't
> >> we do both, especially if there remain issues on which the objectives of
> >> CS
> >> and those of I* orgs are not fully aligned?
> >>
> >> And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil
> >> meeting"
> >> as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) but
> >> since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would
> >> ask.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist".  Nor did I say the
> >>> "technical community" should take over from governments.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But
> >> what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the
> >> first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can
> >> fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without
> >> linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there
> >> are direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice
> >> them
> >> literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving 3
> >> or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't
> >> question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and
> >> just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to
> >> start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my
> >> response to your question. And if his rendition is accurate, then such
> >> state of affairs has implications that you did not need to state
> >> explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are
> >> indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs. In sum, if such (as
> >> described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if you agree with that
> >> (as
> >> implied by your question), then my response to you was warranted. Note
> >> that
> >> the said response is more of a commentary on the said state of affairs
> >> than
> >> it is about what you personally think ultimately --in case the two are
> >> different.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >>
> >> Mawaki
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and
> >>> regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in
> >>> addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes.  I'm not
> >>> willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can
> >>> instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes.
> >>>
> >>> I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react.
> >>> Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> McTim
> >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> >>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________**______________________________
> >>> 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<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>      
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<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<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<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<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<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
> >>
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131030/a11905f0/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