[governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...)

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

What is this, the Spanish Inquisition, or maybe the caucus committee on Anti-multistakeholder activities?

--srs (iPad)

On 18-Sep-2013, at 21:28, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:

>  
> 
> Norbert Bollow wrote :
> 
>  
> 
> <I would propose that people and organizations who purport to participate
> <as civil society should be asked to publish some statement about what
> <they do to ensure a high degree of independence.
> 
>  
> 
> +1
> 
>  
> 
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Message du 18/09/13 17:04
> > De : "Norbert Bollow" 
> > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Copie à : 
> > Objet : Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...)
> > 
> > Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:
> > 
> > > Norbert,
> > > 
> > > How would you determine who has "a high degree of independence from
> > > government and from commercial interests related to the topics on
> > > which they engage"?
> > 
> > I would propose that people and organizations who purport to participate
> > as civil society should be asked to publish some statement about what
> > they do to ensure a high degree of independence.
> > 
> > If such a statement turns out to be significantly deceptive, that should
> > be punishable as fraud. For example astroturf should be persecuted as a
> > kind of such fraud.
> > 
> > > Do you think that everyone of those who work for,
> > > or even speak for, a specific government or business is by virtue of
> > > that association not independent?
> > 
> > Yes, in regard to topics which concern the policies or actions of that
> > government, or which are directly related to specific business
> > interests of that company.
> > 
> > Being in the employment of an organization is the most obvious form of
> > clearly not being independent from it.
> > 
> > > And what value should lie in that independence?
> > 
> > Making it easier to be not be unduly influenced in one's thinking by
> > the particular interests of any of those entities which have strong
> > particular interests related to the topic under discussion. 
> > 
> > > I presume that you
> > > have lost trust in government agencies who spy on us just as much as
> > > I do. And that you mistrust companies who have followed legal orders
> > > or who have willingly cooperated or collaborated with those spy
> > > agencies. That you have lost trust in the system of checks and
> > > balances where those checks have clearly failed. I am fully with you
> > > on that.
> > 
> > I have also to a significant degree lost trust in my own ability to
> > objectively think about matters of the public interest unless I take
> > precautionary actions to prevent myself from being unduly influenced 
> > by phenomena like not risking to lose one's job, hope of winning someone
> > as a customer, the very human need to be respected and accepted by the
> > people who are one's peer group, etc.
> > 
> > All the serious literature on this kind of phenomena (as far as I
> > have read it) leads me to believe that this susceptibility (to forms of
> > social corruption which are not illegal but nevertheless corrupting) is
> > not just my personal problem, but in fact part of human nature.
> > 
> > Consequently there is value in maintaining a kind of independence that
> > is designed to minimize this kind of temptations.
> > 
> > > But throwing all government or business people into the same
> > > category of "untrustworthy because not independent" does not do
> > > justice to the majority of people working in these organizations. 
> > 
> > That is not what I'm saying. I'm proposing a model of stakeholder
> > categorization in which someone who is a engaging as a representative
> > of any one of the stakeholder categories “government”, “civil
> > society”, “private sector” is as a logical consequence of the
> > definitions not at the same time and for the same issue engaging as a
> > member of any other of these three stakeholder categories.
> > 
> > A logical consequence of this is the need for a new category
> > “multi/other”.
> > 
> > I think that the introduction of such a “multi/other” category (which
> > by definition does not have a specific “respective role” in Internet
> > governance, but which is needed to ensure that everyone who does not
> > neatly fit into one of the categories with specific “respective roles”
> > can still fully participate in the discourse) violates neither the
> > spirit nor the letter of the Tunis Agenda. Quite on the contrary, I
> > this a logical consequence of taking the remark seriously about
> > governments, civil society and private sector having “respective roles”
> > in Internet governance without at the same time excluding from the
> > discourse everyone who does not fit into such a “three categories of
> > roles” model. 
> > 
> > > To answer your question: there is value in individuals, regardless of
> > > affiliation, to maintain an independence of thought and to work
> > > together in achieving common public policy goals.
> > 
> > Of course.
> > 
> > The whole point of multistakeholderism is to recognize and value what
> > people and organizations of the different stakeholder categories can
> > contribute to the discussions on the basis of their experiences,
> > knowledge, and ability to take action.
> > 
> > In particular I respect and value what private sector representatives
> > bring to the table in terms of hand-on experience in creating and
> > delivering relevant products and services, and in terms of their
> > resulting ability to be change agents for positive changes.
> > 
> > Conversely, I would like to request that the choice which I and others
> > have made should also be respected, that we have chosen to engage in a
> > way that is by design independent of commercial and government
> > interests in the areas of our engagement.
> > 
> > > Finally, I feel like you are trying to preach from a high tower when
> > > you claim that "as every honest person will admit", the "trappings of
> > > political power and of commercial interest" can "easily lead people
> > > astray in their thinking."
> > > 
> > > Do you mean by this that everyone who works in government or business
> > > is suspicious of leaving his civil conscience, his ethics and morals,
> > > behind by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a particular organization?
> > > 
> > > Maybe you should throw that "holier-than-though" attitude that I
> > > sense behind that claim
> > 
> > Wanting to assert and preserve the specific particularity of “civil
> > society” (in the sense in which I understand the term), and thereby
> > the particular value that civil society can bring to the table in
> > multistakeholder processes, has nothing to do with "holier-than-though".
> > 
> > Similarly it has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when private
> > sector representatives point out that it is the private sector who
> > creates and delivers relevant products and services.
> > 
> > And it also has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when people who
> > register to international conferences as government representatives
> > have to present proof of being part of the official delegation. For
> > example just being a government employee is not sufficient.
> > 
> > > and start engaging with those people and see who they really are and
> > > how they think
> > 
> > I'm doing that.
> > 
> > For example, I'm taking note that right now, a private sector
> > representative who is not just anyone but a person who has served on
> > the MAG as a private sector representative, is telling me that I should
> > maybe “throw” what I see as the very core of my choice to be a civil
> > society person, and that moreover essentially everyone who can claim
> > to have “ethics and morals” should be accepted as a civil society
> > person even if at the same time they're representing government or
> > private sector interests _in_the_topic_area_under_discussion_.
> > 
> > If that view were to be accepted, in the context which we're discussing
> > here (namely, multistakeholder processes in a Tunis Agenda context), it
> > would effectively destroy civil society as a distinct stakeholder
> > category.
> > 
> > That demand to dilute the notion of “civil society” to the point of
> > that notion no longer really meaning anything in particular is not just
> > disrespectful, it is an outright attack on the ability of civil society
> > (in the sense of what the term meant during the WSIS process, and in
> > the only slightly evolved sense in which I use the word) to effectively
> > participate.
> > 
> > After all, if we allow the notion “civil society” to be diluted to a
> > point where everyone can claim to be “civil society” on every issue,
> > it is clear that whatever the framers of the Tunis Agenda saw as the
> > specific “respective role” of civil society will clearly have been lost.
> > (Here I use the word “whatever” to indicate that this argument is
> > independent of whether we agree on what the role of civil society is or
> > what it should be.)
> > 
> > > before making such broad generalizations.
> > 
> > I am not making a broad generalization here.
> > 
> > I have many years of experience of engagement as a civil society
> > representative, and the vast majority of private sector people with
> > whom I've interacted have, in all their interactions with me, shown a
> > high level of professional courtesy and professional integrity. That
> > of course includes acceptance and respect for who I choose to be.
> > 
> > What is going on here on the IGC mailing list where some people (who
> > primarily identify as being private sector representatives or as
> > members of the technical community, but who don't primarily see
> > themselves as being “civil society”) are trying to tell civil society
> > people to change their understanding of what is “civil society”, that
> > is in my experience definitively the exception rather than the norm.
> > 
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130918/f77b795f/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