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

[Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)]

Hi Norbert.

>Therefore, I'd like to ask directly, in relation to the fact that you
posted, ³If 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?²:

>Do you view this point about the WEF as being applicable only in
reference to "workshops" in IGF / regional IGF contexts, or more
broadly?

Given the context, I was talking only about the IGF/regional IGF contexts.


>And specifically, do you see a civil-society-only stand-alone forum
such as the proposed Internet Social Forum as unquestionably
legitimate, or do you see that point about the WEF as being relevant
to questioning legitimacy of the Internet Social Forum?


Just as governments can organise governments-only meetings and business
can organise business-only meetings, so civil society can organise civil
society-only meetings. Legitimacy of any one of these meeting is not the
question to ask.

Regards,
Peng Hwa





On 3/4/15 3:06 am, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:57:01 +0000
>"Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote,
>in response to a posting from me:
>
>> >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.
>
>Context is always important. However your posting was not clear on
>whether you meant your pointed question *only* in reference to the
>specific context of the previous discussion, or more generally. And
>this still hasn't been clarified.
>
>Therefore, I'd like to ask directly, in relation to the fact that you
>posted, ³If 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?²:
>
>Do you view this point about the WEF as being applicable only in
>reference to "workshops" in IGF / regional IGF contexts, or more
>broadly?
>
>And specifically, do you see a civil-society-only stand-alone forum
>such as the proposed Internet Social Forum as unquestionably
>legitimate, or do you see that point about the WEF as being relevant
>to questioning legitimacy of the Internet Social Forum?
>
>>> 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.
>
>Of course it isn't. But if it should happen that someone expresses
>doubts about that analogy being a quite appropriate one, I will be
>happy to defend my view with arguments.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert

________________________________
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