[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
>> The forum is not meant to accommodate that kind of prepared 
>> interventions/statements, it is about dialogue. Because the forum 
>> should not repeat prepcom style interventions, the secretariat offers 
>> the opportunity to contribute videos to the forum. Whoever feels like 
>> giving a statement should use this opportunity.
>>
>> While it is easy to predict that some people will nonetheless prepare 
>> written statements, I don't understand why the IG caucus of all groups 
>> sticks to this pretty non-interactive mode of communication.
> 
> The problem is that, per our years of discussions, as a caucus we can't 
> just pop up there and say whatever we think on the spot. We need to 
> follow a formal process and agree in advance on something. We might 
> present what we agreed upon in a less formal manner - for example, 
> someone could just take the floor and explain our consensus, rather than 
> reading a prearranged document. But we do need to agree on (and approve) 
> something quite precise before the meeting, if we are to speak as a 
> caucus at the Forum.

Vittorio, I would agree with that approach. What I object to is to read 
a statement that sounds as if we are appealing to some higher authority.


I would suggest the caucus brings up one or two important points in the 
setting the scene session. The one I'd found most relevant concerns the 
outcomes of the forum. In order to make the forum a really relevant 
entity it needs to think about potential outcomes and how to achieve 
those. The other point I find very relevant is covered by the first 
issue in the statement. It is about keeping the mission in mind and 
making sure that the forum evolves into more than a mere conference.

But we should definitely not read the whole mission to the audience.


>> Regarding issue No 2: I know it sounds odd for a member of the 
>> Advisory Committee to say this but I would like to get an explanation 
>> why members of the IGF's advisory group should only be appointed for 
>> one year.
> 
> There was no intention to send you away if you want to continue - 

Not my point. I wouldn't mind so much a staggering approach that allows 
for some of us to stay. I would then suggest Adam rather than me.

> actually, the points you make about continuing are valid (though there 
> are others against - for example, since there can be so few civil 
> society members of the AG, perhaps it would be fairer to rotate as 
> quickly as possible). It just seemed logical to assume that AG members 
> would not stick to their chairs forever, but needed reappointment every 
> year, without implying that we couldn't reappoint the existing ones.

My point was to have a discussion about this pro's and con's instead of 
just writing down one possible view on this.

> 
>> There are aspects I don't agree with in issue No 2. The demand that 
>> the AG should make decisions in a transparent, accountable and timely 
>> manner I find just empty. There is a lot of literature on the problem 
>> of accountability and transparency. After having read only a fraction 
>> of it I've come to the conclusion that both accountability and 
>> transparency are not good per se.
> 
> I understand, but I think that the demand for accountability and 
> transparency comes from the fact that many of us are quite dissatisfied 
> with the way this IGF has been designed. I don't think anyone ever asked 
> the caucus whether there should be panels or not, whether we agreed not 
> to have working groups, whether we agreed with such a strong theming of 
> the event and so on. It's not a demand for accountability per se, it's 
> that we need accountability to get our voices heard in the future, 
> since, not blaming anyone, the feeling of many people is this didn't 
> happen enough this year.

As you know, the AG met only twice. The decisions about the basic 
structure were made in the first meeting in May (?). Time was really a 
pressing problem. The only way I see how the caucus could have 
contributed to this would have been to have a systematic discussion 
about structure _beforehand_. If the whole decision making process would 
have designed bottom up with all members first consulting their various 
groups, we would not be ready to have meeting this year. I repeat what I 
said, accountability and transparency is always a relative thing, it 
competes against other goals, and it can easily become dysfunctional. 
For those interested in details, have a look for example at Marc Bovens 
(2005):
http://www.usg.uu.nl/download/08-Ferlie-chap08.pdf

> 
>> Finally an objection to the provision that all AG members should be 
>> selected by the stakeholder groups. First, the caucus did to a 
>> considerable degree select its own representatives but the statement 
>> doesn't reflect that.
> 
> This is factually incorrect - it was true for the WGIG, but not for the 
> IGF AG. This caucus put forward 15 names:
> 
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/governance/2006-April/006088.html
> 
> of which only three were taken; another couple of CS persons who were 
> not in our list were picked (so we picked only 60% of our reps).

I'd say 60% is a reason to complain but not too loudly.

  Ok, we
> didn't hope to have 15 people in the AG, but 5 over 46, of which only 3 
> from the caucus, is not even near to balanced representation of civil 
> society, let it be 1/3 or 1/4 of the AG. Especially if you compare it 
> with the representation of the "Internet technical community", which 
> sums up to 12 members.
> 
> And again, no one would care about chairs, if the resulting Forum didn't 
> come fundamentally short of its mission, especially in the points that 
> were most important to us.

But it is still an evolving thing, we should bring up well considered 
suggestions in the lessions learned session. I still have no idea how 
this reporting will work out and what we actually achieve in Athens. You 
are dismissing it before it had a chance to accomplish something.
> 
>> Yet, the secretariat does need some latitude to meet another concern 
>> mentioned in this section of the statement. If the stakeholder groups 
>> don't propose a sufficient number of representatives from developing 
>> countries, or if they propose only very few women, the secretariat 
>> must be able to make adjustments.
> 
> Catering for diversity and adjustments is different from saying that 
> civil society representatives should be picked from the top rather than 
> appointed from the bottom, 

Vittorio, I didn't say that.
jeanette


which is what we are complaining against.
> 
> Incidentally, you say that you need freedom for the Secretariat to take 
> care of diversity, and yet the only three people that the Secretariat 
> picked from our list were you, Adam and Robin - completely ignoring the 
> developing world... Our suggestions were much more diverse than the 
> final choice!
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance