<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Going forward - Role of the governance caucus
[3 optio</title></head><body>
<div>On its face, the IGC would seem to have little choice but to move
beyond a discussion space. As a core of its 'offer' for IGF, IGC
invites governments to join and adopt its practices for online
deliberation. Unless IGC can conduct its own online affairs in
exemplary fashion, it is unclear why governments would give such an
invitation serious consideration. Important IGC aims for IGF are
at stake.</div>
<div><br>
But there seemed a clear reason why Bill tended toward a discussion
space, rather than anything more: To go farther is a major
challenge, across sharp divides in the group, which so far have not
been surmounted. By far the largest number of the original
responses to Bill's - and from a reasonably wide spectrum - echoed his
choice for just a discussion space. In some cases the reasons
seemed to confirm Bill's, for instance weariness at numerous earlier
attempts.<br>
</div>
<div>Bottom line - no wave of a magic wand seems likely to move IGC
beyond a discussion space. (In fact, to acknowledge creation of
a discussion space could actually be taken as a milestone - Vittorio
might point us to the <a
href=
"http://www.fineliving.com/fine/adventure/article/0,1663,FINE_1403_2841848,00.html"><span
></span>passeggiata</a> as a sort of rough analog.) One
experience so far has shown that trappings such as a charter and
voting may appear to move beyond past differences - but apparently it
takes more, a good bit more.<br>
</div>
<div>What is 'exemplary conduct of online affairs'? Really -
that is the whole question.</div>
<div><br>
Though perhaps a radical notion in a discussion here, group outcomes
turn, IMO, first of all, on the human dynamics among those involved.
The radical part of the notion: this means online tools are only
subsidiary and in support, rather than the starting place.<br>
<br>
What does that buy us? Among others, we design the use of the
online tools to suit our group needs, not the other way around.
Most especially, we focus on our group needs, as any start point for
thinking (not on online tools).<br>
</div>
<div>For a (slightly circuitous) example, consider the IETF as a
model, as <a
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf">Avri</a
> points us. (My <a
href="http://davidallen.org/pages/paprindx.html">papers</a> have long
used the IETF as a canonical case, so of course personally I am in
full support.) Here are two points to start - there is a longer
list ...</div>
<div><br>
i. Strong tie between larger discussion space and smaller
guiding group.<br>
</div>
<div>A person in the IETF, to use the example, has a stake in both the
larger discussion group and in outcomes from the smaller guiding
group. (This arises from roles both in innovation and in the
standardization phases - see the appendix <a
href="http://intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF_Framework-A4.pdf">here</a
> for a really brief description.)<br>
</div>
<div>Another way to put this: There is some level of trust (not
just votes ...) between the levels. Even another way to put it:
At certain times there are effectively hierarchical relations between
levels (despite rhetoric to the contrary). While she may or may
not agree with these characterizations, <a
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf"
>Avri's</a> is surely a necessary starting point, to understand.</div>
<div><br>
Of course the best online tools are what support such a dynamic
story-going-forward.<br>
<br>
But:<br>
<br>
ii. A key difference between the classic IETF model and IGC is
the relative homogeneity in outlook among the engineers who first
created the IETF. The relative similarity meant the dynamics
just above could operate in a more-or-less seamless fashion. By
comparison CS and the IGC welcome the full range of styles and
views.<br>
<br>
The recent line of thought, started by Bret, has tried to plumb the
question. The sociologist would speak in terms of
differentiation and integration - how to break apart into natural
units while still arranging for some connection among the pieces?<br>
<br>
This does make the dynamics above more challenging to pull off.
To put it in practical terms, we could notice that groups often
perform better when there is some task in hand. With very
different viewpoints among subparts of IGC, a common task is harder to
find.</div>
<div><br>
But it is the common bond that pulls the pieces together. These
of course are transformations that take time, commitment, vision,
leadership and the right moment (for which, in my book, read: a
ready community). The good online tools support it.<br>
<br>
The time, commitment, vision, leadership and the right moment probably
bear re-emphasis.</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Of course, we could now spin out the challenge to keep the strong
tie in i), when there are large differences in ii). But that is
next points.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Some of this is heretical to at least some readers.
Overall, are we on the right track? By formal decree IGF also is
no more than a talk shop, a discussion space. (As Milton pointed
out, nor should we sell short the importance of talk.)
Apparently the smart thinking about the IGF 'designated discussion
space'? - that it also be the two-level design now in the wind for
IGC. [Yes, there is a silly paradox in this ... to get a
discussion space, we need more than that ...]</div>
<div><br>
After Jeanette fairly faithfully turned Bill's spec into a proposal,
he at least looks to something to build on. Would that it were
so.<br>
<br>
David<br>
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 5:25 PM +0100 3/3/06, William Drake wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hi Meryem,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Thanks for restarting this discussion,
although I was hoping we could stick with your prior dialectical
thread long enough to find out what Marx and Hegel would have to say
about IG...</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>A few responses to the options you pose.
Personally, I can't see the caucus/mailing list becoming the plenary
or plenary-like space for the whole CS coalition that formed around
WSIS, much less for a more ambitious configuration that would draw in
other CS actors that haven't been involved to date (which would be
important, going forward). While we've moved toward a broad
understanding of IG that touches on many issue-areas, much of the
'global information society' type agenda and the WSIS follow-up and
implementation action lines are outside the realm of IG, and it would
make no sense to try to cram everything from community networking to
FLOSS and beyond into the IG framework. The people and organizations
involved would quickly become very frustrated. So I agree, a broader
restructuring and reinvigoration is in order (but probably unlikely),
the IGC would remain one component of that coalition, and of course
individual organizations or caucuses not involved here would not need
to work through the IGC to participate in the IGF if their issues are
on the agenda, or should be.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>As to the IGC itself, it would seem there
are three options:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>1. Status Quo Plus. Try to strengthen the
group and position it to actually be able to agree on common
positions, as we used to do, and represent them in IGF and beyond.
Prior efforts to start conversations about this went nowhere. One
could imagine pursuing steps like a) determining who actually
considers themselves to be in the caucus---which inter alia would make
it easier to tell when there's consensus on a proposal---by having
people formally opt in, similar to what you did in the Human Rights
Caucus www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/ ; b) having some sort
of shared charter or mission statement (Adam once suggested we get
this by simply extracting guiding principles from previously agreed
texts); c) setting clear decision making rules; d) electing new
coordinators; e) maybe seeking financial support from a foundation;
etc etc. I strongly suspect that we are no longer in a place where any
of this would be viable. The diversity of views on substantive issues,
particularly with respect to core resources, is simply too great; as
WSIS went on, only the procedural questions like demanding CS
inclusion proved easy to agree on promptly and without controversy.
Perhaps the only way we could reduce that diversity would be to form a
fairly small group that agrees to a rather specific charter, which
others would presumably find exclusionary and odious. By extension, I
think Veni's suggestion that the caucus could become a legal entity is
a total non-starter. An undefined range of people who don't actually
agree on much and are working as volunteers is hardly the foundation
for a viable formal organization.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>2. Status Quo. At present, the caucus is
more like a loose network of people with common interests (as opposed
to positions), an umbrella label we can use for purposes of
identification when interfacing with governments etc. No defined
leadership, agreed procedures, membership, etc, just CS participants
in a 300-person, multistakeholder e-discussion space. When individual
or organizational participants want to develop and represent a common
position in IGF or elsewhere, it's done on an opt-in basis, and the
result is not presented as a caucus position per se. For example,
that's what I did last month re: the ITU reform meeting, a text was
rushed together, two dozen people signed in a day, and I submitted it
to ITU under the rubric 'members of the IGC,' rather than 'the IGC'
(even though there were more signatories than we typically had
expressing support back when the caucus did adopt joint positions).
This avoids non-signatories feeling their views have been
misrepresented etc. Similarly, individual or organizational
participants make interventions in IGF etc. without purporting to
represent the IGC. That's what we did at the IGF consultation, except
once when those attending managed to have a meeting and agree on some
points, which Adam presented as representing the consensus of caucus
members who happened to be in attendance. This has basically worked
ok, and governments probably don't recognize the devolution from what
we were doing before. However, it doesn't provide any formally
principled basis to do what Milton mentioned as a key function, namely
nominating people for the IGF PC or whatever. And of course, if
different groupings working under the rubric promote incompatible
positions in a meeting with governments, it might cause a little
confusion.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>3. Status Quo Minus. We could declare the
caucus to have been dissolved, now that WSIS is over. Smaller
groupings, presumably of the like minded on particular issues, could
be formed to address particular issues or represent particular
political tendencies, and the list would continue to function as it
does now. Since we can form coalitions of the willing under option 2,
it's not clear what the advantage of this would be, other than
avoiding any confusion on the part of governments etc. as to whether
what someone is saying is 'the caucus position.' Maybe I'm missing
something...</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>All things considered, the status quo has
some clear deficiencies and is a bit disappointing, but it seems
viable for most purposes, no?</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Best,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Bill</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 8:02 PM +0100 3/9/06, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hi, I've been offline for some days and
missed an interesting debate. I hope I can push it a bit
further.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>As I said before, I think it would be a
real mistake to give up on the IG caucus as civil society actor. Most
government and private sector people in the WSIS context know of our
existence. We form one of several interfaces to civil society in the
broader sense and have thus become some sort of a platform and brand
name. The very fact that people from ITU, ISOC or ICANN have
subscribed and listen indicates the relevance of this
space.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>As most of us know, it is not easy to
establish such a status. New, more specific cs groups would have a
hard time to reach the reputation we have right now. And there is
another point I want to make: I really believe that it is our duty to
work on structures and procedures that allow us to form common
positions and develop such positions over several years. If we want
civil society to be taken seriously, and if it is our goal to change
dominant policy preferences, we have to establish ourselves as a
reliable long-term organization.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>So, please, lets think of a caucus reform
rather than reverting to a mere discussion space.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>To me, this list has and should also in
future have two functions. First, it is indeed a space for discussing
IG related issues across organizational and sectoral boundaries.
Second, the caucus is a working group for civil society folks to form
opinions on those issues, to prepare interventions. A potentially
third role would be to select people for specific committees, working
groups or whatever.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In the first and second year of its
existence, the caucus could fulfill those two roles on the basis of a
rather lose structure. (Just to remind you, Adam and I insisted on
being only coordinators. We didn't want any formal authority and
therefore refused to become "chairs".)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In the third year, I observed a growing
tension between the two functions of the caucus as a discussion space
and as an intervention-oriented working group. What was good for the
caucus as an open discussion space, became an obstacle for the caucus
as a working group.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>If we want to keep both functions, the
working group part needs a better structure. My proposal would be to
create an opt-in structure for those who regard themselves as active
members of the caucus (as opposed to listen to its discussions) and
want a voting right.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>An option would be to combine a voting
membership with signing a charter. A charter could bind members to
certain tasks and/or positions. Bill mentions Adam's suggestion to
extract parts of former caucus statements as the basis for such a
charter. This sound like a useful procedure provided people want a
charter that defines limits of acceptable positions.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The new chairs of such a voting
membership should have more authority than the former coordinators. As
things are right now, one veto can be enough to kill a draft
statement, no matter how many people support it. In order to welcome
and support diversity among the caucus membership but also attain
again the ability to agree on positions and makes decisions, we need
to develop some form of majority ruling.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Personally I wouldn't want to vote on
every substantial decision. I prefer the concept of rough consensus
because it emphasizes the need for debate and convincing
others.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>If you havn't done so, please read Avri's
account of IETF's decision making rules:
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf</blockquote
>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The important message of the IETF paper
is that all notions of rough consensus need somebody to determine
rough consensus. This somebody, the chair, is accountable to the
group. He/she can be recalled if a majority doesn't trust the chair
anymore.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In short, I propose to create a smaller
entity amidst the caucus as it is. The place for discussion would
still be the IG list. The only difference is that members of the
smaller unit would elect the chair and agree on
statements.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The future chairs should be elected and
given some authority to call consensus on positions or
papers.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Perhaps, if the rules and the role of the
chairs are clearer, we are able to find candidates for this position.
In the last half year or so, being coordinator was a pretty thankless
job. I know from private discussions that this is one of the reasons
why nobody wanted to take over.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Sorry for being so long,
jeanette</blockquote>
</body>
</html>