[governance] APC - Forum draft?

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Very perceptive assessment, and you should also add those who have given up
on giving inputs thereby keeping silent as they usually are ignored or
attacked. 

I agree that there is almost a greater agreement on principles and concepts
e.g. forum and multistakeholder, but we differ in details and the actual
implementation. Can there be a way to reflect the common points, and then
the issues we disagree on, we can regroup into smaller groups and make
several inputs (whether it be the North versus South, techies versus non
techies, ICANN versus non ICANN, etc etc. I see no harm with different
inputs from CS on those areas of disagreement as the gov and private sector
too do not have common positions on all items. I disagree with you here,
Jeanette that this route will be political suicide. I tended to agree with
Lee's suggestion (made a long while ago) to have multiple submissions from
CS on those points of disagreement.

This could be a more productive process than trying desperately force
everyone to agree to one single document or have a small group claim to
speak for all. This tends to lead to treating those who do not agree as
"veto actors" or trouble makers. We do have to break this "inside" expert
group versus "new comers" etc attitude and work to reach rough concensus on
common issues, and prepare a common paper on areas we can agree on, and
multiple papers where we disagree.

Laina 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:09 PM
To: Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] APC - Forum draft?

Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
> What a great idea, Wolfgang. What do you think Adam and others tried 
> to initiate over the past weeks? The sad truth is that this list seems 
> to turn into an assembly of veto actors. I wouldn't be able to say if 
> there is anything we agree on at the moment.

Well, I tried to do exactly that, with my list of agreement and
disagreements. Apparently, it didn't work out. And speaking in general, some
people feel like they've been doing all reasonable steps to create consensus
and they've been stopped by some destructive opposition, while the opponents
feel they're being regularly ignored and this is why they have to oppose.

I think that what we desperately lack is an objective procedure to measure
consensus, and, once it's measured, ruthlessly proceed. Food for thoughts
for our Caucus meeting...

I'm specifically concerned by the fact that we all seem to agree on 95% of
the substance for what regards the Forum, and yet we can't manage to come up
with a consensus document. I'm not sure whether we can do anything in that
regard.
-- 
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

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