[governance] Way forward

[carlos a. afonso]

Hi Vittorio,

Not clear to me at all. The logic you propose would be: you are in the
caucus until you have a clear position on the subject, and then you get
out of it and form a like-minded group to defend your position? The
caucus is precisely the space of expression of all positions, organized
or not, in interaction with all the ones who want to take a side if
there is one to be taken.

Actually we did not manage to have a consistent position on political
oversight precisely because the caucus is criscrossed with different
positions. This is fine, the only pity is that we could not converge on
a "minimum program" to present as the voice of the caucus. Maybe we will
be able to do so in the process onwards, as Izumi suggests we keep
trying to do, and I agree.

fraternal rgds

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar
22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil
tel +55-21-2527-5494
fax +55-21-2527-5460
http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org>
To: Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
Cc: Governance Caucus <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:51:20 +0100
Subject: Re: [governance] Way forward

> Izumi AIZU ha scritto:
> > One of the items we need to discuss and decide today, tomorrow
> > and onwards is the "way forward", I hope that most of us will agree
> with.
> > 
> > Now that "Internet Governance Forum" is agreed to setup sometime
> > next year, I also hope that most of us will also agree that
> > we should continue our work as (CS) Internet Governance Caucus.
> 
> Just a preliminary note, as I will only be able to join the Caucus 
> meeting after it's already started.
> 
> I think that if this caucus wants to continue, then it needs to 
> formalize some processes a bit, so that they can ensure the very same
> transparency, democracy, openness and accountability that we ask to 
> everyone else. It also needs to ensure that all positions are duly
> and 
> properly taken into account and consensus is measured before being
> called.
> 
> This kind of "laundry work" has been repeatedly suggested to us in 
> public by all our interlocutors - specifically governmental people 
> ranging from Norway to Cuba - as a precondition for our continued 
> participation in the process.
> 
> If, on the other hand, a group of like-minded people wants to find a
> way 
> to push their specific ideas without being obstructed by slow
> democratic 
> processes and by dissent, then I would suggest they form a coalition,
> a 
> campaign, a group - anything but a caucus.
> 
> At the same time, it is clear to me that the second form cannot 
> legitimately claim to play any "civil society representation" role, 
> including participation in the Forum and other structures as, say,
> the 
> civil society equivalent of the CCBI - something that, on the other 
> hand, could be legitimately done by the first form.
> 
> I do not necessarily have a preference for either of the two, but I 
> think it's time we clarify our minds on whether this is a neutral 
> container for all civil society participants to IG processes, or an 
> advocacy group for specific positions and views. You can't be both at
> the same time.
> -- 
> 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