[governance] On the legitimacy of civil-society-only meetings, e.g. ISF (was Re: APrIGF Macao...)

[Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)]

Hi Norbert.

Just two quick points.

>I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its original
context,
Ok, no response is needed from me then because the context is important.


>In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the desire
of governments to fund themselves through taxes.

I hope you do not take offence but an analogy is not an argument. See the
first page of
https://www.google.com.sg/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF
-8#q=analogy%20is%20not%20an%20argument


Regards,
Ang Peng Hwa





On 2/4/15 3:49 pm, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:44:56 +0000
>"Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote:
>
>> If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
>> importance of a multistakeholder model
>> http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
>> civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?
>
>Actually the World Economic Forum (WEF) has for quite some time now been
>a highly influential proponent of multistakeholderism, and if my
>current understanding of the history of multistakeholderism and its
>currently-dominant ideology is correct, the WEF even deserves to be
>credited as being one of the main inventors of that ideology.
>
>I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its original
>context, since it was asked in the context of an IGF workshop proposal,
>for which the implied claim of that proposed workshop being a
>³civil-society-only² meeting is simply false.
>
>Independently of that context, I think that it is important to address
>this questioning of the legitimacy of civil society only meetings. For
>example, the Internet Social Forum itself (for which I am among the
>proponents) is in fact intended to be a ³civil society only² meeting
>(specifically in the sense of the World Social Forum participation
>criteria).
>
>In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
>meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
>build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
>oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
>businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the desire
>of governments to fund themselves through taxes.
>
>I find it quite noteworthy that an ideology of multistakeholderism has
>brought us to the point where the legitimacy of quite central kinds of
>civil society processes are now being called into question.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>P.S. For the benefit of any newcomers to this debate:
>IGF= Internet Governance Forum, http://intgovforum.org
>ISF= Internet Social Forum, http://InternetSocialForum.net

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.

-------------- 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