[governance] IGC participation was CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005

[Ronda Hauben]

> Is there some specific measures you are proposing?

Yes - that when people try to participate their contributions be welcomed.

And when statements are issued in the name of the few who are welcomed
as participants on the list that either there be a way to include the fact 
that this the result of the agreeement of a few, or that there be some way 
to include the other viewpoints.

When I tried to propose something for a statement a while ago, two people 
disagreed with me and so what I proposed was not included.

I remember going to the meeting after ISOC in 1998 in Geneva when there 
was a process that was called "consensus" to propose what the so called 
"internet community" wanted.

Essentially what were the viewpoints of a certain set of people was called 
the "consensus".

A more open process is where there is a discussion, and people respond to 
each others views. And the discussion is what is produced, not some
statement that has been created by a few people agreeing and 
leaving the rest out of the process.

There is a different goal in mind, than the goal that seems to be the 
purpose on this list of coming up with statements (and now even 'talking 
points' ?)

If there is a vibrant discussion about something, than perhaps some 
salient issues come out of the discussion.

But in the absence of such discussion and the welcoming of the 
differences, and the discussion of them, reflects the narrow process that 
has gone into creating it.

Internet governance requires the welcoming of dissent, discussion and 
controversy.

But unless there is the understanding why this is true, and the effort to 
accommodate differences of viewpoint and to welcome discussion over the
differences then no mechanisms can be found.

Once there is an understanding why differences of opinion and the 
discussion over those differences are important, than there will be a 
variety of means to encourage and support his.

It is a dampener of the issues to ask me how to do this.

It is helpful to hear that there are 288 people on the list.

The issue is not how many of them actually paricipate, but whether there 
is controversy and discussion that makes them want to participate and then 
welcomes their contributions.

Thanks for responding.

Ronda


On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Avri Doria wrote:

>
> On 3 nov 2005, at 16.27, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
>> I am still proposing that there be some way to open up the processes
>> of this caucus and mailing list, rather than continuing to claim
>> that the small set of people, most of whom have been able to go
>> to previous WSIS meetings, are representative of something larger
>> than themselves.
>>
>
> Well the list exists and the wiki has now been opened up, though I
> don't think many people are using yet.
>
> Is there some specific measures you are proposing?
>
> And although few people speak on this list, there are 288 members on
> the list, and looking at their addresses, many come from the economic
> and global south.  Is there some way you suggest to get the people on
> this list to be more active?  It is something I would like to explore
> especially as we move into a post WSIS period.  One of the goals we
> push is capacity building in internet governance, but I am still not
> sure any of us has a clear idea as to how this should be done.
>
> It is a difficult problem.  In one of my day jobs, I work with
> indigenous people.  While they are very interested in the governance
> topics when we sit and talk about them, no amount of encouragement
> convinces most of them to get involved in the discussions - even
> though some actually do attend the prepcom and WSIS meetings.
>
> a.
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance