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

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 18.09.13 22:10, JFC Morfin wrote:
> *On 09/17/2013 06:22 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > Civil society is necessarily amorphous.
>
> *There would then be NO interest in it, except for some to try to 
> manipulate it or use it as an alibi for their own agenda. The Civil 
> society (cf. proposed definition below) is a collective IQ, a source 
> of precious transcendental critics and suggestions and a pool of 
> competent lead users who form the people's last line of defense and 
> protection reserve when an aggression against their common rights 
> crosses the limits their normal life entitles them to.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Any time I hear about "people's last line of defense and protection", or 
anything claiming to do things "for the good of the people", a little 
bell rings in my head and I usually either ignore the rest, or attach 
"beware" note to it.


>
> *> Trying to force it into a definition will lead to its just not 
> existing.
> *to what Karl commented; *I agree with this 100%. Each person is a 
> bundle of self interests and self conflicts.  Each person works that 
> out in his/her own way.
> *


As you say, anyone, always, acts on their own behalf and for their own 
benefit. There are documented cases of people obviously not acting in 
their own interests (*), but these are often considered out of their 
mind, even if some would attach an "hero" label.

(*) We had recently a case in my town, when a young man set himself on 
fire, during protests to have the mayor resign. The young man died, the 
mayor resigned and there was much noise. At the end, the mayor would 
have resigned nevertheless, even if few days later and the man is still 
dead! He would have done much more for the protests, that were restarted 
shortly afterwards, but.. he is still dead. Nevertheless, a lot of 
people claimed he did this "for the people" and to some extent it is 
true... although he probably just could not put off the flames in time :(

> *
> *I am sorry, but I 100% disagree with all of this subjectivism 
> introduced by Peter Hellmonds sentence *“When I served in the IGF MAG 
> as a business representative I've always also considered myself a part 
> of a civil society”.
>
> *Peter, being able to understand other stakeholders’ certainly is of 
> some help toward inter-comprehension, but what you express was a cause 
> for you to resign as not being trustable. What you express here is 
> exactly the same as the NSA engineers being trusted in a normative 
> meeting as engineers, but behaving as NSA employees, with the 
> aggrieving factor that their colleagues could know who their employer 
> was, and the other MAG representatives had no way to know your 
> motivations.

Being employee of an agency like the NSA is a special case. Just as 
being a member of a political party, or religious group, or a government 
is a special case. Those people are all "hooked" in one way or another. 
Sadly enough, I would believe the same kind of "hook" exist also in 
science and education...

Being employee of a commercial organization is "much less" in my book, 
because you can always get off the hook and work elsewhere. There are 
special cases of course and at the end, not all companies are created 
equal -- some do behave like an special agency or a government....

All of this is however a judgement the individual has to make. Nobody 
but them knows all the circumstances and it is not appropriate to attach 
labels to people just because they work somewhere.


>
> Your position was perfectly ethical had you been a Judge, an expert, 
> or a member pronouncing himself in his heart and soul. However, you 
> were not. You were a business stakeholder’s group representative. In 
> your heart and soul you should have represented the best interests of 
> businesses. Otherwise, how could you negotiate with other group 
> resilient sustainable agreements, if these agreements are biased in 
> favor of Civil Society? No side can trust you and your deliverables.

With this kind of attitude, why should anyone be surprised that less and 
less talented people (who obviously have well paying jobs) agree to 
participate, especially in "civil society" matters.

>
> This is the difficulty of multistakeholderism and the difference 
> between its polycracy and democracy.

Everything becomes plain and simple, if we remove all this sugar coating 
and accept that everyone looks at their own interest first and foremost.

> *
> *A barrister has his own opinions, and can express them outside of the 
> court in wearing his own cap. What we share is to reach robust, 
> sustainable, efficient consensuses, the esthetic of which is people 
> centered. Our ethic is to do whatever is transparently good to that 
> end. I see no problem if an NSA member tells me: “here is my 
> proposition as an NSA employee”, and adds “as a civil right expert I 
> advise you to try to find something stronger”. Different caps.

Doesn't this contradict with all the theories you presented above?

Why should a barrister be able to do it, but an valuable employee 
(obviously, an expert in the field) of a commercial subject can not?
If you remove all the experts from a study on a specific subject, how do 
you ensure that the outcome ever makes sense? (I know, 
"multistakeholderism" mandates that everyone should stay separate and 
fight with each other)

>
> Peter, when you say *“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.”*, I 
> am sorry but if you keep my respect, you lose my trust. Your paycheck 
> draft by this business is for helping them to make the internet work 
> better so that they make more money.
>
> -  Either this is not their target and if you wish to stay with them 
> you are to refuse to represent them,
> -  or this is actually their target and you do to them and us a 
> disservice in not trying as much as you can (including in publishing 
> it as long as you did not obtain it, so that they know if they want to 
> keep you as a representative) to have them share your ideas, so that 
> their ideas that you represent are also yours.
> *
> *

*The world is not black and white. If everything was as clean and 
ordered as you present it, we would not be having this discussion.

Daniel
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130919/7e1986a0/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