[Bp_multistakeholder] Bad Actors - what is meant by this term

Sat Oct 17 12:01:30 EDT 2015

I agree with the comments below from Alejandro and Marilyn.

Best,

Richard

From: Bp_multistakeholder [mailto:bp_multistakeholder-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Alejandro Pisanty
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 17:38
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
Subject: Re: [Bp_multistakeholder] Bad Actors - what is meant by this term

Hi,

there are many forms of bad condcut that have not been listed and merit it: 

abusing process to delay or deform substance

veiled threats

undisclosed conflicts of interest, including contingent fees etc.

astroturfing

making up "think tanks" and expert opinion, or inflating their value artificially

presenting as rights and citizen concern, dressed with citizen-activist language, what is governmental/political or commercial interest

and so many, many others. There are books listing them.

While the idea of "bad actor" is attractive it essentializes the conduct into the person.

So probably a bettter route is to identify the conducts. "Bad conduct" instead of "bad actors" will still be hard to define unambiguously. It will still make many people react defensively to tany definition. But it may be an attempt that is less likely to flounder like this one is about to.

Also, what is specific to the multistakeholder process among all these definitions? Our ifndings should concentrate on that question.

Alejandro Pisanty

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:

I am watching this discussion and want to introduce a concept that may not be welcomed.

A bad actor is someone who does not want to enable or engage in fact based and reasoned, and

respectful disagreement.  Consensus may not be achievable on a topic, which might not be ripe or mature. but discussion needs to be respectful and try to present facts and not engage in personal assaults or disparagement

I cannot spend a lot of time on this, but I do refer all of you to our early days when Nitan Desai was our Special Advisor to the SecGen and ask us to return to civility. 

BUT, again, it is possible NOT to reach consensus... that does not mean that one is a bad actor.

Some issues take much much and then much longer to understand,and and some have no global view, but regional or national views.... but all of these discourses need to be civil and fact based...

A bad actor to me is someone who engages in attacking and disparaging comments, attacks individuals or organizations or states with hostile and disparaging remarks... and seeks to disrupt the civil discourse.  

Civil disagreement should fall into a different category..

M

  _____  

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:49:06 +0100
From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng
To: avri at acm.org
Subject: Re: [Bp_multistakeholder] Bad Actors - what is meant by this term
CC: bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org

Hi, all,

Avri gave an intelligible comprehensive insight. Very thoughtful indeed.

I'd then like to define bad actors as people who consistently make remarks that are detrimental to active participation of some other people and/or to reaching a consensus in multistakeholder discussions.

Best regards,

CPU.

------------------------------------------------------

Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ, Ph.D.

Management Information System, ICT and Innovation

University of Nigeria http://www.unn.edu.ng

Alternate e-mail 1: udochukwu.njoku at ieee.org

Alternate e-mail 2: njoku.prince at gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prince.udochukwunjoku

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisprinceudochukwunjoku

Tel.: +234 8077227038 <tel:%2B234%208077227038> , 8063450674, 8108218762

Project: https://sites.google.com/a/unn.edu.ng/eteachingproject/ 

Project’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ETeachingProjectUniversityOfNigeria

Article 1:  <http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=1868> http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=1868

Article 2: http://rgjournals.com/index.php/ijkrm/article/view/467

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

hi,

First apologies for the tardiness of this note.

At our last note, we came to a question of what we mean by bad actors in
the sense of a multistakeholder practices.  I indicated I would start
the discussion with some initial personal thoughts.

Let me start with one thing I do think it does _not_ mean.

- it does not mean people who disagree with the prevalent view point
- if does not mean people who argue passionately for some view point
they support

Some of the elements that might contribute to a definition

- people who participate in a process with the effect of scuttling the
process.
- people who persist in arguing a position after it has been discussed
in detail and found to not be part of the consensus, and use that
position to block the continuing work of the rest of the group.
- people who persist in bringing up out-of-scope issues that act as road
blocks to a group making process.
- people whose primary form of argument is personal attack, intimidation
and bullying.

It is notoriously difficult to ascertain motives and intents to people's
behavior, hence, unless there is evidence of intentionality in a
person's or group's writings or public statements, any judgement of 'bad
actor' must be taken on practical evidence.  Also, it is often difficult
for a single person to judge the behavior of others, and such judgements
should be taken with care and with the consensus of the group if
possible.  Care must also be taken to not use claims of 'bad actor' to
inflict a tyranny of the majority on a minority that has not had
adequate opportunity to make and explain its case.

Also, great care must be taken to not confuse passion with bad
behavior.  A single action of bad behavior should not be confused with
being a bad actor, people sometimes lose their cool under the stress of
discussion and negotiation.  Judgement should be based on behavior
trends and long lasting patterns.

Finally, accusations of 'bad actor' should not be used to prevent a
minority from including dissenting statement in relation to any
consensus position taken by a group.

avri

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
Bp_multistakeholder mailing list
Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org

-- 

WebRep

Overall rating

_______________________________________________ Bp_multistakeholder mailing list Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org

_______________________________________________
Bp_multistakeholder mailing list
Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org

-- 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151017/eb0877a3/attachment.htm>