<font color="#996633"><font size="2"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">Hello Oliver,</font></font></font><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Jeremy,<br>
<br>
Le 15/01/2010 17:46, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
<blockquote type="cite"><div class="im">
<div><b>Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh
meeting of the IGF</b></div>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
</div><div class="im"><div>We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these
thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several
hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic
and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to
constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course
of its renewed term.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>About the IGC</b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society
who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed
during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in
Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400
individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its
Charter. More about our coalition can be found at <a>http://</a><a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">www.igcaucus.org</a>.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-size:12px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<p align=""><span style="font-size:medium"></span></p>
<br>
</div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
Thank you for writing this statement but I am really sorry - I
*strongly* object to the statement as it is currently phrased.<br>
<br>
Okay - I'm not sure whether I am "allowed" to be saying this, but
whilst I think that your writing style and ability is impeccable, and
whilst I agree with some of the points developed, I also need to point
out that the statements which make up this submission are seriously
misleading about the amount of support this statement has behind it. <br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with you on this observation.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
In a previous message, you said:<br>
"There were 36 responses to the survey; 26 full, and 10 partial (since
no questions were compulsory). This amounts to about a quarter of our
membership, which isn't bad at all in my opinion. "<br>
<br>
Am I correct to assume that the IGC statement is based on these
responses?<br>
<br>
In the IGC statement, you now mention "400 individuals" in mailing
lists - so as far as I understand, you're got responses from less than
10% of the coalition's individuals. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Your calculations are correct.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
You therefore *cannot* have sentences in the release saying:<br>
"We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts,
which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from
civil society" or comments such as: "it is widely accepted" or "Many
also believe" because the opinions you are describing, are from an
absolute minority of IGC members. Either that, or you should not use
the figure of "400 individuals" in the statement and should mention
somewhere that only 36 responses were received.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I partially disagree with you on your exacting standards for using expressions such as "rough consensus" or "many also believe". With a list of 400 members as volunteers, the maximum number of active participants is not likely to be in excess of a hundred. This is broadly true of any voluntary organization with volunteers as members. 36 responses out of an overall strength of 400 is a fair indication of a rough consensus. If we expect a 50% + vote for every decision, or a quorum for even the most important discussions, it is going be very difficult to handle IGC tasks. So we need some tolerance towards coordinators / working group heads who will find it impossible to proceed with any decision if we are to insist on a quorum or a 50% approval. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
I'm sorry Jeremy, for having to write such an email. I am not criticizing you in person: I think you did a great job of trying to
pull some text together in such a short length of time, but I am
concerned about the IGC's actual *legitimacy* in the face of such a
statement. The fault for a "failure to have a consensus document
written in time" falls onto our collective shoulders - and I will stand
out there and say "yes I have failed to take the time to help this
year, I am sorry, and I'll try to do better next time", and I hope that
others will too. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, it is not going to happen next year, not with the present standards of participation. It might happen if the IGC caucus insists on an electronic equivalent of the attendance standards of Rotary Clubs. Are we as members willing to be governed by rules of minimum participation such as agree to vote on at least two third of the issues posed or contribute to the discussions in half the number of topics, or lose membership? In such a strict environment it may be possible to achieve the participation required to claim "legitimacy" in the face of statements.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">But in times of doubt, wisdom directs that strong
statements are not made for the sake of making strong statements. If
you are in doubt about what the IGC really wishes to say, then, please
do not include ambiguities that make consensus appear where it is not,
or crowds appear where there's just a handful of people.<br></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
A "strong" statement can just end up being a "wrong" statement, and
that's not good for anybody.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>While agree that care must be taken before making 'strong' statements, I feel that it is OK to talk of rough consensus based on rough assessments that come from experience. Unless there are indicatively strong, adverse responses from a few participants,from which the adverse mood of the participants is assessed, it should be OK for the coordinators to assume a "rough consensus".</div>
<div><br></div><div>I think this is what is practically possible. </div><div><br></div><div>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Warmest regards,<br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
<a href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html" target="_blank">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a>
</pre>
</div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote></div><br>