Who is Civil Society?/ Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...)

Wed Sep 18 15:39:18 EDT 2013

Hi,

I note that Peter and Norbert have had their discussions privately and sorted the matter amicably. However, from George's post and others, there are clearly strong feelings where this is concerned. We might want to consider publishing a statement of interest or a brief description of what we do. For the record, I did not initiate the discussions on "who is civil society" either offline or online but I feel that I should address some of the points raised. I will also try to understand where the various perspectives are coming from.

One of the challenges, with the IGC is arriving at a consensus on issues of importance and some see that as a failure on the part of the IGC. Sometimes, the conflict is seen in the nature of debates and conflicts that happen on the listserve where different interests and perspectives pop up. Whilst, some argue that the dilution of civil society is a threat because it criticises the civil society world view, I would argue the exact opposite in that it helps to enrich the civil society world view by enriching it.

As for the civil society world view, it is as varied as the colours of the rainbow, no one spectrum is alike. Wolfgang mentioned (paraphrasing) that it is culturally impossible to get consensus. I would add that, when it counts, we agree on common denominators. Perhaps one thing that the IGC can work towards, in the future is agreeing what the common denominators are in terms of key sets of principles of things that we should advocate as an IGC rather than a reactionary approach to call for comments on Policies, Preparation of statements etc. The Charter essentially provides a guideline for IGC advocacy. Developing a set of key principles that we agree to seriously advocate is critical in terms of bringing some resolution on what we will agree to harness our resources to highlight and raise. In this instance, it will be our strength to have allies in government, private sector when we are advocating or raising certain issues.

For example, I derive great confidence that as we have those with commercial interests but are also civil society, that because they have been privy to our discussions, that they can raise matters of public interest. Corporations can make a profit whilst addressing public interest in the way they roll out technology, etc. This is better than simply ignoring civil society. It also means that there are shared values.

Similarly there may be those who work for governments who are not authorised to make comments on certain things as governments usually have an official position on the matter but some feel that they can express themselves in forums such as this. I have met numerous government representatives who lurk on this list who have mentioned to me in person, that the discussions have helped to inform them and no doubt enrich their worldview. 

There are no easy answers and certainly as Avri mentioned, we are all civil societies who declare ourselves to be. No one is a better judge of that, than you as  an individual. In the years that I have known Peter Hellmond, he is a far more active civil society voice in raising awareness on matters of public interest and social responsibility. 

Kind Regards,
Sala

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Well according to the IGC charter, we are all Civil society who declare ourselves to be.  The point is dedicating your work toward the well being, as you understand it, of civl society interest.  I am comfortable with this standard and don't really care where a person does it.
> 
> But if, under the leadership of one of our co-cos we get down to determining who is and is not influenced as a determinant, I think there will be a lot of things to look at, including my favorite - who funds your so-called  Civil society organization.
> 
> Also, for those who live in countries where the registration as an NGO is state controlled and a perk of cooperation, I have questions as to the degree of uninfluence those folks can ever really have.
> 
> As for RFC 3869, civil society it could not speak of, and thereof remained silent on the issue.
> 
> avri
> .
> 
> 
> 
> On 18 Sep 2013, at 12:08, JFC Morfin wrote:
> 
>> At 17:38 18/09/2013, avri doria wrote:
>>> What about those NGOs, research and educational enterprise that get most of their funding from industry. Are they influenced? Certainly ofif we were talking about lab testing of that industry's products we would consider them influenced.
>> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> this was perfectly addressed by RFC 3869.
>> RFC 3869 is realistically but incompletly updated by RFC 6852.
>> Both are explained by PRISM.
>> 
>> The rule is simple: trust no one you do not trust for your own life. Because it is actually your own life, sometime, somehow, which may be at stake.
>> jfc 
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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