[governance] APC - Forum draft?

Thu Nov 10 16:20:31 EST 2005

Hallo all and responding specifically to Bertrand's questions

Thanks for the positive responses to the text.  Some of it is still work in process.  But to 
clarify.  It was NEVER our intention that the IG caucus adopts this.  The text serves to 
consolidate the networking, ideas and discussions that have emerged from our involvement 
in this process. Much of the content goes back to the IG proposal we worked on last year 
with our members, paticularly with Carlos Afonso.  Much of it reflects the ideas of the IG 
caucus and it has benefited dramatically from inputs from individual members of the IG 
caucus.

It responds to a demand for an APC position from our members and from people we work 
with on ICT policy advocacy projects at national level in many parts of the world.

> Dear Anriette, Willie and Karen (and I suppose other contributors),

We discussed this basic position with our members at the APC council meeting in Bulgaria 
in October, but the main other contributors to this particular document are Avri, Jeanette and 
Adam through Karen carefully integrating their comments through several versions.

>  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)

That is not our intention.  If people or organisations want to endorse it they are welcome to, 
but that was not our departure point.  We wanted to get a solid piece of text out in good 
enough time to try an influence the outcomes of the process and to give our members 
something to work with at national  and regional level. 

 - 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.

Well, I would like to hear others on this, including Karen and Willie who are offline.  My 
sense is that our document will make a constructive contribution to focusing the discussion 
by governments.

If any individual or group wants to endorse it we would welcome it.

BUT I think that if the WSIS IG caucus can continue what it has started and to produce its 
own document based on where there is consensus that would be better as I doubt very 
much that you will all be able to agree with quite a bit of what is in the APC document. Why 
not have an IG input that reflects the consensus position of this caucus?

It could be shorter, perhaps more minimalist and better written :)

I also think that it would be valuable for this caucus to produce a document in its own name.  
It has been one of the most effective and hard working caucuses in the entire WSIS 
Process.  The IG caucus document can use text from the APC document (as Adam 
proposed), refer to it as needed, but also stand alone.

Anriette

>  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
> >
> 

------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance