At 11:16 AM +0100 3/16/14, William Drake wrote:
>What always amazes me are the purportedly authoritative sources who are
>willing to say anything.


Without my being able to keep up with much of the detailed developments
here, this point is nevertheless worth underscoring.

Politics, both formal and informal, is pervasive in human collectives at
all levels.  And the rhetorical games played in the power struggles reflect
the instinct to manipulate loyalties to often narrow ends.

It is useful to understand that this will necessarily be part of any
multi-stakeholder process (whether formally integrated into it, or
otherwise infusing itself around and through the cracks in the formal
structures), just as much as it is part of any other structure of
governance.  Where there is (collective) power, there is politics.

If civil society actors can indeed "clear their throats and bring a little
sanity" that would be a good example to set, but even more important would
be if there is a way to structure the formal process of multi-stakeholder
engagement in order to minimize and deflect/balance the inevitable
political dynamics.

I don't have an answer to that one, but I would hope that civil society
actors would not only endeavor to behave well, but to push for structures
that either/both encourage good behavior in others and/or discount that
behavior in terms of influencing the structured process.

Especially, this seems to be a point where "outside influences" will become
increasingly important to IG, at a scale orders of magnitude greater than
in the past.  Don't focus entirely on the "inside game" here, because the
"outside game" is about to become very profound.  Internal structures of
governance will increasingly have to take into account the massive external
power struggles that exist, and attempt to incorporate those realities into
the reality of "internal" governance.

This may well be the inflection point where internal matters of arcane
technical minutia become integrated with the wild buffets of global
political winds in full force.  I can easily imagine this insulated little
technical world becoming completely overwhelmed with such forceful "jet
stream" shocks.

All I can say is, don't turn away from those external battles -- putting
our collective heads in the sand about this will only serve to recuse us
from dealing with that reality, which defaults power and control to those
who acknowledge it and harness it to their own advantage.

We can push back against those "who are willing to say anything" by forcing
them to be accountable.  But, technical accountability is not the only game
here.  The tribal wars are front and center here, and civil society needs
to get really good really fast at framing the message in a way that is not
only technically accurate, but also emotionally/tribally compelling.

Get out and dust off your Lakoff, get friendly with political consultants,
point one eye outward to the actual broad constituency "on the ground" that
civil society purports to represent.  Take the outside game seriously.
Speak to the broadest audience possible.

The "Keep The Core Neutral" campaign in 2007 was just a first baby step in
this direction.  Maybe time to engage some pros (like: civil society orgs
that have real experience doing this sort of thing, such as FreePress.net,
etc.) to think about those sorts of dynamics now, and not just enlist some
volunteer newbie like I was back then.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.