[discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative Multistakeholder model validity

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Jan 19 11:30:05 UTC 2014

On Sunday 19 January 2014 09:40 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2014, at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> There are several other associated lists but this is the main one.
> Could you point to any discussions about Internet governance, I'm finding it hard to even see any real debate/community input to the declaration you often mention.  And any discussion about interest in the Brazil meeting and process:  other than email from yourself, Parminder and other IT for Change staff, and Norbert, who are all active/leaders of other civil society processes?


You are going down the right path, Adam.... Civil society must prove 
itself by demonstrated work, linkages with various groups... It  is a 
legitimacy always  in the making, continually to be proved and 
re-proved, although too many people forget this basic feature of civil 
society once they get into cushy positions close to power ...

Right, you may not have found many discussions on the CI list on IG 
directly as seen and defined by many people here..... But you will have 
noticed that almost every discussion there is regarding use of ICTs and 
Internet for empowerment of people and communities, mostly those who are 
currently disadvantaged. And there is considerabe traffic of such 
postings, and a considerable diversity of participating members.  Is it 
not necessary to get these views into discussions on what is passed off 
as 'mainstream' IG. I hear a regular refrain in the IGF that it is 
necessary to get in groups dealing with real world Internet related 
issues. Do you think that registry-registrar relationships and the 
intricacies of the whois database are the most important Internet 
related issues for the people...

Now that you raised questions about the legitimacies of those who are 
claiming exclusion, I think you would agree that the same questions are 
also due for those are included (by shutting out others). Apart from the 
very extra-ordinary spectacle of the civil society CC arrangement 
putting out 3 out of 3 nominees for high level committee as people from 
developed counties, and then the Giganet doing exactly the same - from a 
cursory look I can see no candidate whose primary work and civil society 
linkages are with grassroots community work and marginalised sections, 
as for instance CI groups are. I'll be happy if you can show that I am 
wrong in this assessment. Do you think this is not a problem? Is this 
not a glaring exclusion? I think this is a huge problem. And this is 
what this present discussion is all about. In the same way as civil 
society as such fights to get into IG spaces, those who work with and 
represent the interests of the marginalised groups have a right to fight 
and struggle to create spaces for their participation. It is indeed very 
inconvenient in the latter case to convert it into an issue of bad 
manners and personal ambitions!

In fact, it was argued before the selections begun that work on/with 
marginalised communities be made an explicit criterion among others for 
selecting nominees. However, there were actually people on the list who 
argued against this criterion (pretty unbelievable, really, for civil 
society!) . I did not see the criterion listed in the final list. I 
asked the chair of the selection committee if such a criterion was 
applied, and he never cared to reply.

This is exclusion in capital letters. And it would not be accepted. And 
sorry, if it hurts someone ears or eyes, you will keep hearing about it. 
Putting up allegation of bad manners and personalising a political issue 
of exclusion is an old tactic. Civil society isnt that weak to be cowed 
down and retire in face of such tactics...


PS: Adam, Since you specifically mentioned IT for Change, you may like 
to now that IT for Change runs a semi-autonomous entity 'Centre for 
Community Informatics and Development' for the last 7 years or so, at a 
rural town around 160 km for Bangalore. This entity works on numerous 
field projects, and we at IT for Change build our IG perspectives inter 
alia from our work over there. Do you see the link between community 
informatics and IG?  May also add, that 2 years back my colleague Anita 
edited a special edition of the Community Informatics journal on 'gender 
and community informatics'..... and so on...
>> M
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:47 PM
>> To: 'Adam Peake'; discuss at 1net.org
>> Subject: RE: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative
>> Multistakeholder model validity
>> Yes, and I've pointed to it several times on this list and on others.
>> M
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:40 PM
>> To: discuss at 1net.org; michael gurstein
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative
>> Multistakeholder model validity
>> A related question.  Michael, about the community informatics group, is this
>> the archive of the group's mailing list
>> <http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers>?
>> Thanks,
>> Adam
>> On Jan 19, 2014, at 6:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> I hope that this answers your questions.
>>> It does answer the question I asled.
>>> Thank you.
>>> So, I conclude that
>>> a. /1net has already given you the pre-disposition you should expect
>>> with
>> the list of nominees you just submitted an appeal on.  As you know I am
>> among those who think the /1net leadership, pre-SC and now the /1net-sc, do
>> have the responsibility for dealing with your appeal.  But the prior notice
>> that they were only going to accept nomination from certain sources was
>> probably a clue as to how they would react to a slate presented directly to
>> them once they gave it appropriate consideration.
>>> b. the names were not submitted to any other process.
>>> While other processes may not have sent the request for nominees far
>>> and
>> wide, a statement that i think needs to be proven yet, I wonder did you and
>> the other Ig experienced people mentoring the CI through this process know
>> about the opportunities for getting CI members into the mix while there was
>> still time.
>>> Thanks again for your reply.
>>> avri
>>> On 18-Jan-14 16:14, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>> CI submitted its nominations to the br.cgi folks who told us to
>>>> submit these to 1net.
>>>> We submitted these nominations to 1net and were told that they were
>>>> only accepting nominations that were forwarded through CS: CC and
>> GigaNet.
>>>> Our approach to CS: CC concerning involvement with their processes
>>>> including nominations was rebuffed. No request for nominations was
>>>> circulated outside of the 4 organizations which constitute the CS: CC.
>>>> The GigaNet process was evidently exclusive to GigaNet as no
>>>> information or request for nominations was, to my knowledge
>>>> circulated outside of the closed GigaNet list.
>>>> I hope that this answers your questions.
>>>> M
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:49 PM
>>>> To: discuss at 1net.org
>>>> Subject: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative
>>>> Multistakeholder model validity
>>>> (all cc dropped)
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I have one question on all of this, did CI present its candidate list
>>>> to any other processes?  I have noticed in these processes that
>>>> various people and groups submitted the same names to different
>>>> processes.  So even if CI was holding out for either doing it own
>>>> thing to establish its footprint in the /1net movement or for the
>>>> invitation it did not get to be on the joint CS selection process,
>>>> did they make sure, given the uncertainty of their appeals, that
>>>> their candidates were also considered by Academia and the  CS4 processes?
>>>> avri
>>>> On 18-Jan-14 14 @gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for
>>>>> everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have
>>>>> those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to
>>>>> ponder and revise their understanding based on the information
>> exchanged.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list