[governance] APC - Forum draft?

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Dear Anriette, Willie and Karen (and I suppose other contributors),
 Very useful contribution, very complete list of points addressed and an
effort to provide a comprehensive architecture.
 I support the general outline. Good basis for further refinement. Of
course, Vittorio is raising important questions, particularly regarding
openness of membership and the role of the Team, and these must be
addressed. But this text has the considerable benefit of narrowing down the
domains of discussion among us.
 Before getting into that, a pragmatic question echoing Bill's remarks. Is
this document something that APC proposes :
- as a basis for discussion within the IG Caucus, with the objective to
build a position for CS as a whole (or at least to get the endorsement of a
significant number of organizations)
- or rather as an APC paper that will be released anyway under APC name and
is circulated to collect comments and improvement
 I think it has the potential to allow the first option. Tell us what you
have in mind.
 Best
 Bertrand

 On 11/10/05, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:
>
> Il giorno gio, 10-11-2005 alle 19:23 +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen ha
> scritto:
> > Perhaps the term 'membership guidelines' would be better.
> >
> > Having a transparent process with membership criteria and a nomination
> > process will contribute to:
> >
> > - diversity
> > - relative representavity
> > - legitimacy
> > - transparency
> >
> > In other words, it will help ensure compliance with the WSIS principles
> you
> > mention above.
>
> As I was saying, I agree if it is not a mechanism to exclude anyone, but
> just to verify applicants on a formal plan.
>
> However, the fact that you mention "relative representativity" makes me
> think that you imagine a sort of "quotas", so that you can't accept yet
> another civil society group if you already have 100 NGOs and only 5
> private businesses (random example). Am I right?
>
> In general, I think you should be very careful about the fact that the
> forum is open to anyone who meets some basic, formal, non-exclusionary
> criteria. This is what is commonly expected from Internet governance
> processes - mostly, people expect to find a mailing list and join,
> period. The idea of "bottom-up" is exactly that - all those who are
> interested gather and create a group at the above layer.
>
> > > What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom?
> >
> > Member of the forum.
>
> So it's like, there's APC and CPSR applying for forum membership and a
> nominating committee deciding which of the two orgs becomes a member?
> Just to understand.
>
> If I'm right, then I disagree. It seems you have in mind something more
> like the UN ICT Task Force, rather than the IETF - am I correct?
>
> I would suggest moving any kind of "relative weight for decision making"
> at the level of an executive group, rather than at the level of forum
> membership in itself. A closed membership entity (from the UN, taking
> over the Internet, etc) would be criticized and discredited on the
> entire net in a minute.
>
> > Personally I find the tripartite model of stakeholders very limiting,
> and I
> > suspect it will be quite shortlived.
> >
> > To reduce the range of stakeholders involved in IG that are neither
> > government or private sector to 'civil society' is very problematic and
> results
> > in insufficient voice, skill and diversity in what should be processes
> in which
> > all affected groups (stake - holders) can participate.
>
> Sure, but who decides that "the community of actors involved in
> technical aspects of internet development and management" (whoever that
> be: does that include ICANN? W3C? ISOC? ITU?) is a fourth category that
> is more deserving than, say, the academics, or the engineers, or
> individuals, or IGOs, or whatever else? That's why I'm wary - we might
> not like the tripartite model, but at least there's decades of practice
> in understanding how to manage it, and how to tell between different
> categories.
>
> > > > - Drafting the member structure
> > > > - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum
> >
> > We felt a small group with a fixed term mandate would be more effective.
>
> Again, on such a groundbreaking development, I think inclusiveness is
> much more important than effectiveness. After all, if this Forum is not
> "bought in" from the bottom, it will never fly.
>
> > Karen and Willie do not have access to email right now..expect to hear
> > more from them later.
>
> Sure.
>
> On procedures, I share Bill's concern, and I would rather like the
> caucus come up with something on its own, rather than adopt a proposal
> from a specific organization - even if building over it.
> --
> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org<http://bertola.eu.org>
> ]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051110/f8ac1553/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance