[governance] IGC, BB, JNC, etc. (was: Options for BestBits)

Wed Jun 25 11:06:30 EDT 2014

To add to what Norbert says, no civil society grouping can presume to speak for more than just their constituent individuals and organizations. 

So, while jnc differs from others on this "equal footing" concept, they speak for themselves, not for civil society, the global south or what not.  Much the same with this caucus, best bits etc

It might be safest if IGC allows members to sign on, or not, as they please to any proposal - and these go out with the names of the people interested, not with IGC's imprimatur. Or failing that, space be provided in a sign on statement to mention any individuals or organizations who feel bound to opt out of any IGC statement, listing them as having done so.

--srs (iPad)

> On 25-Jun-2014, at 20:22, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Norbert, and All:
> 
> Interesting outline of the profile options for BB, thanks for helping start (maybe only partially unwittingly) a discussion that I think should involve IGC and which might lead o a helpful and healthy clarification of boundaries among at least the three entities.
> 
> My question to you and everybody else who has thoughts to share on that is the following: What do you see the role of IGC to be in all that? What is the future of IGC?
> 
> I came in as a co-co for the IGC with the hope that we could re-establish a workable modus vivendi that would enable us to carry forward with the function (or ambition) of the early IGC, and make IGC most relevant again. The only thing the events seem to have proven so far is that we can manage to keep a semblance of peaceful and cooperative atmosphere only if we give up intervening on the most important global IG issues. Frankly, that is not I personally meant in our first note to the list which was co-signed by the two us co-cos.
> 
> On that note, allow me to open a parenthesis here to say one thing I have come to realize is that cocos not being elected in tandem, but each one individually, there should be no expectation that they share the same vision, that they agree on what is more important for the IGC to intervene on and what is less important, or even actually understand what the other coco means while they seem to be using the same words. So there you have yet another layer of transaction costs. At this point my personal view is that it is perfectly fine each coco makes any suggestion or raise issues directly to the membership (while they may share in advance with the other coco either as a matter of courtesy or for tactical reasons, etc.), as they see fit. Parenthesis closed.
> 
> Back to the main point as far as IGC... In trying to figure out the future of IGC, should we identify the main current of thoughts that so often clash in our discussions and consult with the tenants to let us know what are the minimal conditions under which they deem their continuous participation in IGC worth it -- and thus the continuation of IGC worth it in their own view. In other words, I am wondering whether it will ever possible to find that point of equilibrium to be defined by the formulation and agreement on some basic operating rules whereby IGC will be able to keep its diversity while not allowing itself to be captured or taken hostage by one particular group of members (from one or the other end of the ideological spectrum) because they do not agree with an outcome, a likely or an anticipated outcome, or even a question to be considered for decision just because they don't agree with the terms of the question.    
> Please let us know your thoughts on both aspects: 1) What is the future of IGC next to BB, JNC and other similar groups that may emerge? 2) What would be the operational conditions to make that future effective?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>> > I think the dilemma being offered here - that BB must be either
>> > perfectly inclusive and representative of all civil society groups in
>> > all ways, or it should do nothing at all - is extremely unhelpful.
>> 
>> In my view, BestBits essentially has three options to choose from:
>> 
>> 
>> 1) BestBits can choose to be a civil society network in which a
>> particular perspective on multistakeholderism (without trying to put
>> words into anyone's mouth, I think that the view that the equal-footing
>> multistakeholder model is acceptable would be part of it) is explicitly
>> acknowledged to be part of the values of the network, while BestBits
>> would also acknowledge that there are legitimate civil society
>> viewpoints which differ from this view. Consequently BestBits would
>> make clear that it does not in any way attempt to represent civil
>> society as a whole.
>> 
>> This kind of stance would be a good starting point for allowing
>> BestBits and JNC to collaborate in regard to all matters in regard to
>> which there is in fact broad agreement.
>> 
>> 
>> 2) BestBits can choose to seek to be fully inclusive of civil society
>> as a whole. This would imply clarifying that in BestBits, JNC's view
>> that “the equal-footing multistakeholder model is undemocratic and
>> therefore unacceptable” is equally acceptable as the opposite view, and
>> it would involve a commitment to never discriminate against this core
>> concern of the Just Net Coalition (JNC).
>> 
>> 
>> 3) BestBits can continue to have an unclear stance in this regard. The
>> situation that proposals are made to see BestBits as representative of
>> civil society as a whole would likely continue, while others including
>> myself would continue to consider those proposals offensive, and
>> object. Not a particularly productive state of affairs. The rift would
>> likely increase over time, and I think that it could quite easily turn
>> out to be increasingly strainful on personal relationships.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140625/2a62c4c6/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