[governance] APC - Forum draft?

[Vittorio Bertola]

Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
> This I find slightly confusing. Are you really talking about a _forum_ 
> or a new working group, say, a WGIG 2? I thought of a forum in terms of 
> a much larger membership and a more open process than the 40 members of 
> WGIG and its public consultations.

I agree - I think it's really, first of all, a wording problem. Until 
now, we always thought of the Forum like a sort of "open room" 
(physically and online) where everyone could step in and talk, and there 
was then some discussion on whether a WGIG-like "steering / executive 
group" would be desirable to ensure coordination and, as you point out, 
weighed decision making when necessary. It seems to me that the APC 
proposal collapses the Forum into the group, i.e. defines as "forum" 
what we always discussed as the "steering group".

This IMHO lacks the perception of the broad involvement and bottom-up 
participation that is necessary for this process to start and succeed. 
Saying that bottom-up self-organization is dangerous because more 
organized stakeholders might occupy more space than the others is true, 
but is also a consideration that belongs (no offense implied) to the 
top-down, centrally planned 20th century government processes, rather 
than to the bottom-up, distributed, cooperation-based 21st century 
governance processes that we aim to design.

If the UN really established a closed group in a way that anyone felt 
excluded, the only result would be for the Internet to route around it. 
Inclusiveness is not just a precondition for legitimacy - it is a 
precondition for success.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] 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