[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

Wed Dec 25 22:40:28 UTC 2013

Thanks Anja, and of course the CI community is pleased to have you along even if only as a lurker J

And I’m sure that the work that you were doing/the contribution that you were making was a very valuable one.

However, your note raises what I think is a very significant issue that goes to the heart of many of the disputes within the IG civil society space.

There seems to be a feeling within the currently dominant forces (as for example the IG CS “Coordinating Committee”), as expressed quite clearly in the CS “selection criteria”, that somehow being anchored in a perspective/active network is a negative!  -- something to be actively excluded.

For most of CS outside of the rarefied IG environment, being anchored in, and having the opportunity of giving voice to a significant network is the ideal—a goal to be actively pursued. 

In fact most CS organizations as for example in the Environmental area, Land Rights, even Privacy are coalitions of precisely those kinds of networks…  Of course, there is negotiation and horse trading between the networks—they have different goals and represent different social interests etc. but there is no attempt to suppress those networks.

I think it is a pity that you haven’t participated more actively in the Community Informatics network and chosen to link your activities within WSIS to your (limited) engagement with the CI network… I think the interaction, as for example, in helping you to formulate your perspectives and positions vis-à-vis WSIS would have added for you and for the CI community.

As for setting up a dichotomy, it wasn’t me who set up the dichotomy but I was simply pointing to the reality. I’m delighted to hear for example, that you have mentioned Indigenous people in your presentation at WSIS, it means that some of what I’ve been saying is starting to filter through. But simply mentioning Indigenous people without having a link to Indigenous people and their concerns is precisely the kind of top down speaking for others that they and many marginalized peoples find so repellant. 

The intent and to a considerable degree the reality of the CI network is that it gives various of these groups (and the  ICT practitioners and academics working to enable them) an electronic space for them to interact and to give voice to their concerns.  Notably among the current signers of the CI Declaration is the Indigenous People’s ICT Task Force as an example.

Best,

Mike

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 8:01 PM
To: Norbert Bollowork
Cc: Rudi Vansnick; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

Dear all,

My apologies for coming to this thread late, I had very limited email access for the past ten days, but I do still want to respond to a few messages here. 

> On 21 December 2013 07:28, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

/snip/

>While I recognize the significance and contribution of the existing IG
>oriented CS organizations I must insist that they do not reflect the
>interests or concerns of those of whom Community Informatics is for the most
>part constituted... marginalized communities in Developed and Developing
>Countries, indigenous peoples, older persons, and others for whom the
>Internet offers but for the most part has not provided, significant
>opportunities for "engagement, empowerment and justice".  As an example,
>although there are some 325,000,000 indigenous people in the world apart
>from my regular comments I have yet to see anyone in the CS or larger IG
>community make any reference to these people or any overtures towards
>inclusion of their very specific concerns and interests.
>

>Matters of free expression, human rights, net neutrality and so on and so on
>are discussed and pondered but the manner in which the Internet might
>provide enhanced life opportunities for Indigenous peoples, marginalized
>communities and so on are never ever discussed except in the most abstract
>and ultimately condescending terms.

I fully agree that the perspectives of marginalised people require greater attention in Internet governance debates, but the impression given here that people in CS today do not address such issues at all is simply incorrect. For some of us, they are in fact what drives all of our work. Just by means of a concrete, brief example, when I participated in the WSIS+10 Review MPP meeting last week, I made interventions, among other things, to request for a balance between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic and social rights on the other; to acknowledge in the text the qualitative digital gap in particular where bandwidth speeds are concerned and educational exceptions and limitations on copyright; and incidentally even to strengthen text around the rights of indigenous people - in addition to arguing in favour of strong protections for the right to freedom of expression - and all this from a strong developing country perspective. I am by no means the only person in CS who takes such stances, nor, I dare say, am I the only one among the CS 1net Steering Committee nominees (though I am speaking here only as myself). 

Although my analysis is always rooted in political economy perspectives, I tend to couch such interventions often in the language of human rights as I believe that is one of the best tools we have to communicate with a wide range of policy makers from very wide backgrounds on such issues. But that does not mean that I fight only for freedom of expression, let alone for a very narrowly-framed version of it, as seems to be the claim here. To think that human rights are only about civil and political rights would be a major fallacy. To think that civil and political rights are not important for people in developing countries, or are only of secondary importance, would be equally mistaken: without freedom of expression, for example, it is very difficult for marginalised people especially to defend their own rights. Justice and human rights are not two separate, let alone opposite strands, but are intimately interrelated, and as far as I am concerned one cannot be achieved without the other. 

To set up a dichotomy, as has been done somewhere on this long thread, between human rights and justice is therefore something that I find extremely dangerous and damaging to the work that is already being done in the Internet governance sphere to create a more just, equal and fair society for all. It is true that different actors may come at these concerns in different ways and by using different languages and perspectives, but surely if we keep the end goal in mind, there is space for all of these. Though I have been lurking on a community informatics email list for years now, I don't use that framework because for a variety of reasons, I don't find it the most politically productive one. I would still like to think of the folks in that community as allies though, and treat them as such. Keeping in mind that we have similar end goals, I would appreciate if my political choices are treated with similar respect. 

On 23 December 2013 06:10, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

/snip/

Anja Kovacs is originally from Europe, although she now lives in India.

I therefore do not think that European perspectives are
underrepresented.

While it is correct that I am originally from Europe, I have now lived in India for more than 12 years. When I speak, that is the perspective from which I speak. I do not represent European perspectives on Internet governance issues in any way. 

Best regards,

Anja 

(It is true that neither of these represents the political entity “EU”.
Representing political entities is however not part of the role of
civil society in the first place, IMO.)

Greetings,
Norbert

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053>  | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

On 23 December 2013 06:10, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at npoc.org> wrote:

> A quick reply to the message below.
>
> If I’m not wrong for civil society there is no representation from
> EU ? Can someone explain me why ?
>

> > *** from Civil Society:
> >
> > 1. Joana Varon
> > 2. Rafik Dammak
> > 3. Anriette Esterhuysen
> > 4. Vladimir Radunovik
> > 5. Anja Kovacs

Vladimir Radunović is originally from Europe, and he still lives in
Europe.

Anja Kovacs is originally from Europe, although she now lives in India.

I therefore do not think that European perspectives are
underrepresented.

(It is true that neither of these represents the political entity “EU”.
Representing political entities is however not part of the role of
civil society in the first place, IMO.)

Greetings,
Norbert

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131226/c23b9c57/attachment-0001.html>