[Bp_multistakeholder] Bad Actors - what is meant by this term
Richard Hill
rhill at hill-a.ch
Sat Oct 17 14:19:52 EDT 2015
I agree with Luca's comments below.
Best Richard
Sent from Samsung Mobile.
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: LB at lucabelli.net </div><div>Date:17/10/2015 20:06 (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> </div><div>Cc: IGF BPFs <bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [Bp_multistakeholder] Bad Actors - what is meant by this term </div><div>
</div>Hi all,
I agree with the comments expressed by Alejandro, Marylin and Avril.
However, I would also add that, while in general it is difficult to ascertain motives and intents to people's behaviour, as argued by Avri, it becomes much easier when there is minimum transparency regarding the source of funding of the involved actors/stakeholders. It is indeed highly unlikely that a stakeholder’ behaviour be contrary to his own (economic/political) interest. Therefore, when there is transparency with regard to the economic and political interests of a given stakeholder, it becomes much easier to evaluate motives and intents of his/her behaviour (and therefore the likelihood that the stakeholder may engage in “bad” behaviour in order to disrupt/delay a process).
At the end of May, I shared on this list an article I wrote on the matter. (see particularly pp 11-14) http://policyreview.info/node/364/pdf
Probably my input has not been fully considered because I shared it in a very early phase of this process and, in May, the discussion on actors’ interests/badness had not emerged yet. Should you be interested, the article also proposes a model “Stakeholder Sheet” that can be used within any multistakeholder processes to assess stakeholders’ behaviours based on affiliation, source of funding, type of legitimacy and interest in the process. (See page 13-14)
Hope this is helpful.
Best
Luca
PS: should you have problems downloading the PDF, the article is also available here http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/heterostakeholder-cooperation-sustainable-internet-policymaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luca Belli, PhD
Researcher, Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de Janeiro
Founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality
Co-founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Bp_multistakeholder] Bad Actors - what is meant by this
term
From: Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, October 17, 2015 12:23 pm
To: Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>
Cc: IGF BPFs <bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org>
These are all good points. I think if we adopted a framework to define this issue in the way that Alejandro described, it would not only avoid the problem of singling out someone who is considered a bad actor (and the implications or fall out of doing so) but provide guidelines for future discussions regarding conduct and procedural expectations.
Could the points that have been made about individual behavior all be compiled into a list? And also, would that differ from the existing codes of conduct?
-Michael
On Oct 17, 2015 7:01 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
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, 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
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
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151017/84ae18c1/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bp_multistakeholder
mailing list