[governance] APC - Forum draft?

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Lee McKnight wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think we attach the APC doc as an appendix and point of referenece,
> to a very short IGC statement. Specifically, I suggest transposing
> Vittorio's 'we agree' hallelujah chorus email message as the IG caucus
> statement, leaving out everything we don't agree on. 

Hi Lee, I like the APC text but don't find the section on 
membership/nomination process clear enough to support it. I agree with 
your proposal.
jeanette


> 
> It's exactly around these membership-type old-world processes that I
> don;t think we can just say we agree 100% with APC, even if there is
> inevitably some lightweight accreditation checking that happens
> especially in face to face meetings.  Sends the wrong message in my
> opinion.
> 
> In the couple page caucus statement we should applaud the APC for an
> excellent report summarizing key issues and suggesting ways forward, and
> attach it as an appendix. Likewise a suiable IGP paper could be
> proferred, for appendix purposes only, but that might get long - you
> call : )
> 
> The rest of us wish you Tunisians well trying to insert reasonable text
> on the fly, just like everyone else : )
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> 
> 
>>>>Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> 11/10/2005 1:01 PM >>>
> 
> 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.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance