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

[Ian Peter]

I agree with all the voices who find it difficult to define civil society. I 
would suggest the same difficulties exist with technical and business 
communities as well.

But I would point out that, as a consequence, multistakeholder will never be 
a form of governance of any great significance or recognised validity, 
because there are no clear boundaries to define stakeholder groups and 
probably never will be.

Multistakeholder dialogue? Yes, excellent idea. It can lead towards all 
relevant voices being heard.

Multistakeholder governance? Sorry, it makes no sense to me, and is greatly 
open to manipulation and domination by the powerful.

Which is a great pity. I would love to move beyond feudal nation states as a 
form of governance, but without recognised and clearly defined 
constituencies I can't see this happening. Nor would I see an ideal form of 
global governance being based on electoral and representative units such as 
NGOs, businesses, and techies.



Ian Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 5:39 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Avri Doria
Cc: IGC
Subject: Who is Civil Society?/ Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was 
Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...)

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







____________________________________________________________
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