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

[Lee W McKnight]

Hi,

If I may weigh in from an academic perspective...although perhaps my credibility is undermined by my quote below from Wikipedia; which I paraphrase below:

Civil society to the Greeks was everyone not the state.

Hegel and Marx thought of civil society as upholding the capitalist superstructure.  Meaning both business and social interests and individuals.

More recent writers have drawn the line some are suggesting here, excluding business.

In sum, when carrying this discussion further on who is or is not able to claim themselves to be part of civil society, this professor suggests for our homework assignment we should first review at the least wikipedia's definition of civil society, if not any of the original cited authors. I also suggest we specify in commenting on the list on this topic whether we subscribe to a classical Greek, Hegelian, Marxist, Gramscian, or other contemporary definition of civil society....which Wikipedia suggests is derived from a mis-understanding of Gramsci. (And of course, since Wikipedia say it is so...it may be so. ; )

I am with Sala in suggesting ambiguity comes with our virtual civil society territory.

Lee

PS: And I quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society):

Departing somehow from Marx, Gramsci did not consider civil society as coterminous with the socio-economic base of the state. Rather, Gramsci located civil society in the political superstructure. He viewed civil society as the vehicle for bourgeois hegemony, when it just represents a particular class. He underlined the crucial role of civil society as the contributor of the cultural and ideological capital required for the survival of the hegemony of capitalism.[37]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society#cite_note-37> Rather than posing it as a problem, as in earlier Marxist conceptions, Gramsci viewed civil society as the site for problem-solving. Misunderstanding Gramsci, the New Left<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left> assigned civil society a key role in defending people against the state and the market and in asserting the democratic will to influence the state.[38]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society#cite_note-38> At the same time, Neo-liberal thinkers consider civil society as a site for struggle to subvert Communist and authoritarian regimes.[39]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society#cite_note-39> Thus, the term civil society occupies an important place in the political discourses of the New Left and Neo-liberals.




________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 4:09 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...)


On Thursday 19 September 2013 01:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Hi JFC,

I hear what you are saying and it implies that things must be black and white.

 In a former life I was legal counsel for a Telco which would have made me private sector but I was advocating matters of public interest and not just looking out for the best interests of my employer then. In fact being involved in civil society from as early as 1987 have helped me to have a more balanced worldview when dealing with the corporate world. I used it to engender awareness within my own organisation on multiple issues.

I have since left to form a Think Tank which is independent, self funded. I consider myself to be civil society. I was the inaugural chair of our National Cyber Security Working Group which is actually Multistakeholder in composition but reports to My country's Ministry of Defence. Following handing over, I am now Chairing the Legal Sub Committee of the Working Group and advise the Government but am NOT on their payroll.

Nothing above bars you from being a full fledged civil society member if that is the primary identity that you would like to carry and present , as I have seen you do. But dont you agree that if you were in the pay of say a commercial entity with a direct interests/ stake in global IG, that would be entirely a different matter.  Same issue with someone directly in charge of IG issues with a government. Their views are welcome, they can participate in discussions, but they can hardly be given decision making powers in a civil society groups.


I don't see any merits that can come from policing the current subscribers on this list and pigeon holing them into categories. If people want a pure civil society list, they can easily start one.

I dont know what you mean by purity, but if it is about certain standards of avoiding conflict of interest, representing public rather than private interest, and the such, so yes, maybe that is what is needed. That is if indeed some people would like to keep insisting that IGC is a kind of multistakeholder group. There can and should be multistakeholder groups and lists, but while the discussions in the e-space of IGC were always open to all, beyond that it was always meant to be a civil society group.....

I don't like anyone telling me what I am and what I am not. The test of the matter should be in the levels of contribution on substantive matters, policy, statements, influence etc.

not at all on the substance of them?

parminder
Similarly, the attacks on Peter Hellmonds are uncalled for. Whilst there is a way to highlight your point but you need to be able to raise it without resorting to attacks.

For the record, I object to any type of pigeon holing.


Kind Regards,
Sala

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:10 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com<mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com>> wrote:

At 18:43 18/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:
Peter H. Hellmonds <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu<mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>> wrote:

> Perhaps we need to make a phone call to clarify
> things. I'll send you my number in a private mail. We can then
> discuss offline and inform the list of the outcome.

Update: Peter and I have talked and have amicably resolved the
issue between us.

I am glad of that. However, the matter raised key general issues that have to be discussed outside of friendly phone talk. I concatenate them.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

In democracy, you are a person representing people through your vote by majority. In polycracy, you are an authoritative competence advocating the interest of a constituency toward a consensus that is to be uncovered (a consensus is to actually pre-exist under conditions to clarify and agree, otherwise it will never hold). In democracy, you are a person, in polycracy you are an advocate.


This is why I 100% agree with Norbert, except when he proposes: “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.”

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.

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.

Another point that I would like to make in addition to Norbert is that you took one of the representative places. Who put you there? Why? Who would have been picked otherwise? With the same ideas?

jfc


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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/20130924/86774e20/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