[governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel

Sun Jan 12 17:16:52 EST 2014

Tks Deidre,

But in this instance it is the "who" i.e. the Community Informatics Network
and its arbitrary and self-serving exclusion from the various
representational formations (e.g. the CS: CC); and then the illegitimate
usurping of the mantle of "CS" by the CS: CC on behalf of its self-selected
and self-appointed members (and the similar process of the "academic" mantle
by Giganet);  followed by the tacit or active acceptance of this
illegitimate process (including through the apparent acceptance of the
exclusivity of nominations) by outside agencies such as Inet with or without
their awareness of (complicity in) this illegitimacy; that leads directly to
the denial of the opportunity to give a voice to these end users (and
non-users) including excluding those who through their research and project
work endeavor to engage and empower these end users (and non-users) - the
"what".

Mike

From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 1:05 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Internet Governance; William Drake
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel

I agree with you. I consider that the end users in particular (who in the
final analysis provide most if not all of the funding) are shamefully
ignored. But in that case we should surely be discussing how - process -
instead of who - personalities. Ian tried to initiate something like this.

And for this meeting the process discussion would seem to have no direct
relevance since it would appear that the final selection will be made by the
conveners of the meeting - who are not us..

On 12 January 2014 11:32, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Deidre and all,

The "who" in terms of these committees matters a very great deal in
determining the "what" of the expressions that are allowed to appear because
the "who" on these committees provide the framing of the questions which
will be discussed and thus the determination of those points of view which
are "acceptable" and those which fall outside of those norms.

The Community Informatics community in large part arose precisely because
the "who" of participation at the WSIS consisted almost exclusively of
people talking about other people's work and almost no one actually speaking
of their own work or of work with which they had a close association and
direct sympathy. As I've noted several times in the past actual grass roots
users or grass roots practitioners particularly those working with the
marginalized were not present and most certainly not well "re"presented by
those who did participate in WSIS.  Grassroots users/practitioners have had
to live with the consequences ever since.

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:13 PM
To: Internet Governance; William Drake

Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel

"BTW it's worth bearing in mind that all we're talking about here is who is
on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less
importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items.
"

The brouhaha over who is selected and how seems to me to be a wonderful
example of the magical results of smoke and mirrors, and earns my (grudging)
respect for the very clever strategy that started it all.

Speaking for myself, as one who will be represented, at the moment I see
very little chance of being represented at all. If you wish to represent me
then you must take some trouble to establish what my position is on the
various issues that may be discussed. The priority should be for the what,
the issues and positions, rather than for the who.

I suspect/hope that Bill's "infinitesimally" has wriggled its way somehow
out of context.

Of course if no representation is intended then the who becomes supremely
important, since I must hope that my point of view will find its way to the
meeting through the serendipity of "shared values".

In connection with this I should like to second Ginger's proposal for
facilitation of really effective remote PARTICIPATION for the Brazil
meeting, and for as much of the preparatory process as is practical.

On 12 January 2014 06:31, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Norbert

On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:

However, before the message that the meeting would now be an
LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request.
As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have
insisted on dealing directly with the LOC,

Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate
our participation when we expressly decided against it..

For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in
agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us
both :-)

Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist
on dealing directly with the LOC

The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online
at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows:

Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net)
IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org)
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the
Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org)
Association for Progressive Communications - APC (anriette at apc.org)

Thanks

In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might
be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the
signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC
has not formally endorsed it. 

Thank you for clarifying this.

The two people who were at the time the
co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter
certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met
in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters,

Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization.  Not wanting
to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or expecting that
what the people who happened to be in that room said permanently committed
the networks of which they're members to a position that could not be
reviewed and agreed by others later.  As you yourself say, IGC did not
formally endorse the position, and yet it has been routinely asserted since
that this is IGC's position.

Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the
positions of IGC and BB and there's been little response.  Maybe people
don't want to be party to more heated exchanges that won't lead to rough
consensus, maybe they don't care enough either way, whatever.  While this
floats unresolved, the LOG's deadlines for the provision of names get
closer.  And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants 

On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser at cgi.br> wrote:

So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3
names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now.  

Correct ...

So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2
names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday.

Correct ...

If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through
the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are putting
the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to accept
from whom via which channels.  The LOG clearly does not want to be in that
position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and submit through
the 1Net SC (LOG didn't say this because of dark forces compelling them).
At some point, someone has to decide who's on the 2 committees.  Either it's
the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the networks don't have
representation, or it's the 1Net SC, on which most of them do.  

And if it's the 1Net SC, there's the further problem of does it just pass on
names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they've
been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' nominations,
in which case it'll be accused of abusing authority nobody granted it (see
threads on BB and 1Net).  The 1Net SC should not be put in this position,
either.

We've done many cycles on many lists and the clock's ticking down.  Either
we sort this out of we'll have an overdetermined train wreck.  

BTW it's worth bearing in mind that all we're talking about here is who is
on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally less
importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items. 

Bill

____________________________________________________________
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

-- 
"The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 

-- 
"The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140113/e1f490f0/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