[governance] Who are we?

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Sat May 23 14:38:05 EDT 2015 

Picking up on the positive side of this exchange;

Norbert wrote:

"IMO the only way to really advance beyond unproductive and repetitive
patterns of interactions between proponents and critics of
multistakeholderism is for someone to set up a venue of discourse with
the specific goal of facilitating a constructive discourse on the main
points of disagreement between these two viewpoints.

The objectives of such a discourse should IMO be to figure out:

1. whether there are any fundamental points of disagreement on which a
broadly acceptable consensus is impossible to reach, and if so,
precisely understand what precisely the disagreements and respective
opinions and interests are

2. what are broadly acceptable principles, which will, if/when
they are adopted, solve those aspects on which there is no fundamental
disagreement"

If someone would like to set up such a mailing list, I would be happy to 
volunteer to facilitate such a discussion (or co-facilitate with someone 
else).

I agree that the best thing we can do is take this discussion, which seems 
to be at the centre of the disputes which recur here, on to another list in 
a genuine attempt to find where common ground exists and to clearly state 
the areas where fundamental differences exist and may continue to exist.

Ian Peter



-----Original Message----- 
From: Norbert Bollow
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 7:59 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Deirdre Williams
Subject: Re: [governance] Who are we?

On Sat, 23 May 2015 09:10:22 -0400
Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it better expressed if I say that Bestbits and JNC each appears to
> use its own space as a space to agree and the IGC space as a space to
> disagree? And that the disagreements are often full of rancour?

While that wording would have been much less provocative, I still
object to that statement.

It is true that one of my recent postings (I mean the posting which
consisted of a pointer to the "Reflections on making Internet governance
democratic and participative" paper [1]) was an expression of
disagreement with a certain set of viewpoints, and that at least one
prominent Bestbits person holds at least some of the views with which I
have pressed disagreement.
[1] http://bollow.ch/papers/democratic_and_participative.pdf

However, my other recent major posting, of which I include a copy
below, is totally mischaracterized by the implied assertion that I
"use .. the IGC space as a space to disagree".

In regard to the assertion that "the disagreements are often full of
rancour", I find it highly offensive that (whether intentionally or
not) both this wording and the previous wording are supporting
those have made certain ad hominem accusations is response to my two
recent major postings that I have just mentioned.

In my opinion, my postings were completely in line with the IGC's
posting rules, but each of the four responses from other IGC
participants was so full of hostility that those responses were all
in clear violation of IGC's posting rules. It so happens that I am
fully aware of the problem which exists in this specific context of IGC
in relation to enforcement of IGC's posting rules, and therefore I
certainly have no intention to criticize you for not enforcing those
rules.

What I however criticize and object to is the decision of an IGC
co-coordinator to react to the present situation with a posting that in
effect tell one side and only one side to shut up (since it is
specifically the JNC people who generally bring up those topics around
which there are significant disagreements) and which moreover
specifically describes demands for democracy in a very negative light,
which is the specific topic that I have brought up recently.

> Democracy is a word, like multistakeholderism, which can be used for
> good purposes and for bad purposes. I say that, with an example, as a
> statement of fact not as a judgement on anyone or any institution.

Since I have no specific knowledge of the events that you have
described, I have no way to form an opinion on whether in that
situation it was justified to make those demands for democracy and
the implied claims about lack thereof. And I also have no opinion on
whether the word "democracy" was used correctly in that situation.

However I have a very clear opinion on what is the message which the
use of that particular example sends in the context of IGC's present
situation. It is not a message that I find in any way acceptable.

> I think civil society has been divided

That is certainly true, but it is not an acceptable solution to
essentially tell one side in this division to shut up in regard to the
points of disagreement.

> and stands in great danger of being absolutely ruled.

Please clarify this assertion; I'm not clear on what you mean with
this statement in the present context.

> Let's stop that happening.

I'm strongly in favor of the desire to take steps aimed at seeking to
overcome --to the extent possible-- the present division within
Internet Governance focused civil society. In fact one of my two recent
major postings had precisely the objective of making a constructive
suggestion in that direction.

I'm including a copy below.

Greetings,
Norbert


--snip--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Discourse on doubts and concerns about multistakeholderism
(was Re: Public interest and multi-stakeholder...)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:59:49 +0200

On Thu, 21 May 2015 02:58:14 -0400
Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> May I make a suggestion?
>
> Perhaps a dedicated list where those interested in the definitions of
> these key terms which have caused so much strife could be created,
> and those interested in that discussion could pursue it there; this
> list could refer all such discussions to the ‘other place’.
>
> That would give everyone what they want, it seems to me.

The real problem is not in disagreements about definitions, nor in the
fact that wordsmithing good definitions is difficult.

In my view, the key for really improving the situation would be to
address the sociodynamics which George Sadowsky has referred to by
stating that "in some quarters", doubters of multistakeholderism are
"shunned and excluded". The other side of this coin is that those of us
who are making the experience of getting shunned and excluded in some
quarters, are of course objecting to that process of exclusion, and
looking for opportunities to express our concerns.

IGC's current structures are IMO quite clearly inadequate to this
situation, in the sense that it is IMO not realistic to expect the
needed substantive discourse to take place in a constructive manner
here on this list.

Neither am I aware of any other suitable, currently existing venues for
this.

IMO the only way to really advance beyond unproductive and repetitive
patterns of interactions between proponents and critics of
multistakeholderism is for someone to set up a venue of discourse with
the specific goal of facilitating a constructive discourse on the main
points of disagreement between these two viewpoints.

The objectives of such a discourse should IMO be to figure out:

1. whether there are any fundamental points of disagreement on which a
broadly acceptable consensus is impossible to reach, and if so,
precisely understand what precisely the disagreements and respective
opinions and interests are

2. what are broadly acceptable principles, which will, if/when
they are adopted, solve those aspects on which there is no fundamental
disagreement

Greetings,
Norbert


> > On 21 May 2015, at 02:42, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 May 2015 13:20:43 -0400
> > George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a
> >> religion, to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and
> >> excluded.  IMO this is counterproductive both to understanding the
> >> possibilities of multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is
> >> the right model to use.
> >
> > Well-said. I wholeheartedly agree.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
--snap-----------------------------------------------------------------


> On 23 May 2015 at 08:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 23 May 2015 07:48:46 -0400
> > Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It is distressing that both Bestbits and JNC, having each decided
> > > that they preferred to come together with likeminded persons,
> > > should both then decide to use IGC as a battleground.
> >
> > Being a co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC),
> > the last part of this statement and its implied mischaracterization
> > of the nature of my postings is in my eyes highly offensive and
> > quite inappropriate.
> >
> > I hereby formally request an apology.
> >
> > > Earlier this week I was present at a meeting locally at which a
> > > venerable and respected NGO (turned 60 last year) was probably
> > > killed by people shouting for democracy.
> > [..]
> > > So let’s regroup so that we can present a common front and so that
> > > “they’ll see how beautiful (and powerful) [we] are, and be
> > > ashamed” (with apologies to Langston Hughes)
> >
> > Does this mean that those who care about democracy, and who
> > consider it essential that it must be accepted and respected when
> > people talk about the need for governance to be truly democratic,
> > will have to go elsewhere?
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert








____________________________________________________________
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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list