[governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...)
George Sadowsky
george.sadowsky at gmail.com
Tue Sep 17 23:18:51 EDT 2013
Peter makes a number of excellent point below, and I thank him for making the effort to do it.
Is it the case that the charter of the IGC excludes individuals having any business or government connections? If so, then maybe some resignations are in order, and there should be a stringent non-conflict test to participate in these discussions. If not, then the definition of this local area of civil society discussion should reflect its charter rather than a purist definition of civil society participants based upon the exclusion of all other sectoral influences.
I think that Peter's post points out the difficulty of allying oneself with the values of and involvement with only one sector, or stakeholder group. The complexity of human activity is too great for that.
George
On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:43 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:
> Norbert,
>
> When I served in the IGF MAG as a business representative I've always also considered myself a part of a civil society. In fact, my personal preferences more often resonate with the sentiments of organized civil society. And we had the general agreement that those who serve on the MAG would be chosen precisely for that quality, i.e. that they can reach out to multiple constituencies and interest groups, that they do not merely represent one particular viewpoint but can synthesize and moderate the various viewpoints of the constituencies to which they are affiliated one way or the other.
>
> If you wish to exclude people like myself from your definition of civil society, then you're doing yourself a disservice. Just like yourself, I am a user of the Internet, just like yourself, I have all the same interests in having my civil and human rights, my privacy and my personal data protected. And I'm also interested in not only looking at myself, but in seeing this extended as a general principle, in the best Kantian categorical imperative sort-of way.
>
> Just like yourself, I have an ethical and moral conscience. And I do not leave all that behind me at the doorsteps of the company just by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a business that is involved in laying the physical underpinning of the Internet.
>
> There are equally people who serve in government who have the same characteristics and who would rightfully have a claim to belong to civil society.
>
> Please remember that some people may have chosen to work in a particular environment (business, government, academia etc) because they felt that their chance of influencing business practices or government regulations or academic research and teaching was best achieved by working from within those institutions. Which does not mean to imply that those who have chosen to do so have done a disservice to the organizations work for or that they may have covertly been disloyal to them.
>
> And please don't forget those either who have over the years wandered between different stakeholder groups, like Bertrand, who would be excluded by your very definition from the stakeholder group he helped to create.
>
> I think you may not need a definition at all. If you think you need a way to choose who officially "speaks" for civil society as a civil society representative, then let the individual case be decided by a common vote amongst those who participate in the debate. They will know who exhibits the traits by which they will want to be represented: fairness, equality, transparency, .....
>
> Best regards
>
> Peter
>
> On 17.09.2013, at 20:21, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
>
>
> On 17.09.2013, at 20:22, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17.09.13 10:32, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil
>>>> society”. My view is that only people and organizations are
>>>> qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly
>>>> independent of all industry and government interests in regard to
>>>> the topic areas on which they engage.
>>>
>>> This is a very good question, but unfortunately not an acceptable
>>> definition.
>>>
>>> What you suggest is that individuals (by themselves or grouped in
>>> organisations) essentially without any qualifications in the field
>>> (by virtue of not being involved in any entity in that industry --
>>> because they are not "companies") are to decide how that very
>>> industry should develop.
>>
>> Huh???
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that I've never suggested that “civil society” should
>> decide single-handedly to make the rules for how “industry should
>> develop”!
>
> I did not want to imply that. However, we should properly name the subjects.
>
>> Somewhat recently I've started thinking more deeply about how
>> multistakeholder processes can be improved, and in that context I've
>> come to the conclusion that it will be best to use a model of
>> stakeholder categories that that has three relatively strictly defined
>> stakeholder categories (“government”, “civil society”, “private
>> sector”) plus one broad catch-all “multi/other” category for all
>> people and organizations who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the
>> first three categories.
>
> My classification would be a bit different (I too, think from time to time how to best define these categories). What I have come to might certainly annoy some, because it's more down to Earth. I too, envision three categories, such as:
>
> 1. "Those who know and do it": this is perhaps what you define as "private sector", but I do not necessarily limit it to commercial enterprises, because I believe such definition would be wrong. "those who know and do" are the only people who can provide insights on why things are done this way, how they can be (realistically) changed and which of the ideas other constituencies have are not practical to implement. (for various reasons)
>
> 2. "Those who want": these are generally what you define as "civil society" in that they do not actually "do" anything of what they suggest/preach, but who in fact insist something be done certain way (for whatever "public benefit" reasons). The role of this constituency is to provide input for the others on what actually the public wants.
>
> 3. "Those who regulate/redistribute": this is what you define as "government". The primary purpose for any government to exists is to regulate and re-distribute the "public" wealth. The role of this constituency in my opinion is in providing the appropriate legal and other framework/environment so that those who want and those who can -- do their things.
>
> Now, thing is, these constituencies always overlap. There is certainly a population out of the "know/do" community that is also part of the "want" community and/or the "government" community. The same with others. This is primarily where our views of the working setup differ.
>
>
>>
>> In this model, for any particular issue area,
>>
>> - “government” is reserved for official representatives of governmental
>> or intergovernmental institutions, i.e. people who are officially
>> authorized to engage in the discourse in the name of such an
>> institution;
>
> Here, the problem is that this ignores the reality. Let's take for example an Internet registry. The registry by itself is an enterprise by your definition, because it is the party who knows and does things. However, the registry is also the "government" of the particular domain in that it defines, sets and enforces the rules in the domain. Models to limit that "power" have been experimented, but experience shows they are not actually successful.
>
> I see your view of "government" is very narrow. But if so, then the "government" category you describe actually has nothing to do with Internet. Or, if it does apply to Internet, it should also apply to say, the bakery business. After all, everyone uses the services of the bakeries.
>
> Since government types almost never know anything about technology, this is the first category of theorists.
>
>
>> - “civil society” is reserved for individuals and groups who
>> are independent of government and industry interests in the topic
>> areas in which they engage;
>
> There is no such thing as "independent". Actually, a colleague of mine provided the following possible definition: "I am independent, because nothing depends on me". As it stands, and given my previous comment, this is perhaps the "independence" part of the "civil society". The second category of theorists.
>
> Again, if they are independent, what their credentials would be? "Former IBM employee" with the presumption to understand IBM technology? Or "Former ICANN director" with the presumption of understanding ICANN processes? Or "Former ISP engineer" with the presumption that they know technology, etc.
> The problem here is "former". There might be many reasons for this, from "fired" to "bored and no longer interested".
> How would these people contribute in any meaningful way? In that they now have enough free time to spare on meetings and travel?
>
>> - “private sector” is reserved for for official representatives of
>> businesses and other private sector institutions that are able to
>> directly act as change agents in regard to the topics area under
>> consideration;
>
> Now, you have me completely lost! If you say the "private sector" is the "official representatives of the commercial entities", then apparently I misunderstood you and your definition of "private sector" severely differs from mine, because in mine the "official representative" is more of a "government" kind person. Those "official representative" people almost never have any serious expertise in the field their business operates and almost always in the management. Therefore they too, like the "civil society" have nothing to contribute to the practical aspects of the governance. So, a third category of theorists.
>
>> - “multi/other” is the broad category of all people and organizations
>> who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the first three categories.
>
> I don't know who you put here, but I don't see a single constituency in your lineup, where the practicing experts, who are the only party that can *do* something, are.
>
>>
>> The goal of such a stakeholder categorization is to help recognize (and
>> hopefully then rectify) situations where the membership of a committee,
>> or a panel, etc, are badly balanced.
>
> Still, the "those who know and those who can" part is missing. As history shows, any committee that lacks this component inevitably produces garbage, that cannot be implemented and is therefore ignored.
>
>
>>
>>> The "industry" consists of all parties that are active in that
>>> particular area, be it individuals or groups of individuals.
>>>
>>> Let's take as example the ISP industry. This is certainly an activity
>>> that has been practiced by both individuals and groups of individuals
>>> (companies). If you exclude those who are in the trade from the
>>> "civil society", what is left is those who have never been involved
>>> in the ISP industry and therefore have no clue what the challenges
>>> there are. Yet, those people are tasked to shape it?
>>>
>>> For me, "civil society" has always been anything that is not
>>> "government".
>>
>> So in your understanding, businesses are part of "civil society" as
>> long as they're not state owned???
>
> In my country, the constitution says that all parties (individuals, organizations, government) are equal. I therefore make no distinction who the owner is. In my view, only the business is the place where the people who "do" things are. Because this is why businesses exists: to "do" things and earn money.
>
>>
>>> Now, "government" is a very wide term and therefore, a
>>> member of the civil society who then becomes "a governor" of any kind
>>> is automatically excluded from the "civil society".
>>>
>>> Now, any "civil society" that participates in "Internet Governance"
>>> should either cease to be "civil society" or cease to participate in
>>> "Internet Governance".
>>>
>>> Pretty complex, eh? :-)
>>
>> The model which I'm proposing avoids this kind nonwellfoundedness
>> paradox.
>>
>> More importantly, the model that I'm proposing avoids defining “civil
>> society” so broadly that the experiences and concerns which are
>> shared among the members of “civil society” are simply shared because
>> we are all humans living on the same planet.
>>
>> The broad definitions of “civil society” do not result in “civil
>> society” being a category with useful meaning. If multistakeholder
>> processes are based on badly defined stakeholder categories, then I'm
>> sure that at least in the long run, no governance structure that relies
>> on such processes can be viable.
>
> See my proposal above. I would rather dispose of "civil society" as a category. I understand it will annoy a lot of people, but still..
>
> One of the problems with "civil society" used in this definition is that not everyone in the world has English as their native language. Translating an expression often is not straightforward and involves the difference in culture and perception between the users of the various languages. A not so fancy definition might actually do the job better.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't believe a "not fancy enough" definition would be accepted by the "government" types..
>
> Daniel
>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>> --
>> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
>> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
>> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list