[governance] Way forward

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> 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. 

About 95% of our discussions take place on this list, at least those I 
am aware of. I would be glad if the EU would reach that degree of 
transparency.
Vittorio, you are comparing two very different entities. A caucus with 
roughly 250 members cannot function the same way as a national 
democracy. 200 of those members may have never raised their voice. My 
guess is that many if not most of them do not even read this list on a 
regular basis.

Consensus on such a list will always be based on the statements of those
who contribute actively. Such consensus can only be a rough one. This is 
why I think that not th working structures of governments but those of 
organizations such as the IETF should be our models.
(We have discussed this issue so often before. Why do we never make any 
progress?)

It also needs to ensure that all positions are duly and
> properly taken into account and consensus is measured before being called.

I don't think consensus can maesured in a more formalized way than the 
IETF measures consensus.
> 
> 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.

I am not aware of this. And even if they did, I would patiently explain 
to them that civil society doesn't work that way.
> 
> 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.

Yes, perhaps it is about time to do that. Personally, I am still 
thinking about this.
> 
> At the same time, it is clear to me that the second form cannot 
> legitimately claim to play any "civil society representation" role, 

We have usually spoken on behalf of the caucus, not on behalf of civil 
society.

> 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,

I do understand that you are frustrated when your positions are adoped 
by the causus even if you push for them. I disagree with your 
interpretation that the caucus reflects views of a specific group just 
because its not your view that guides our statements. I remember that 
how very difficult it was to establish consensus positions during 
prepcom 3 precisely because all of those who actively participate hold 
so different opinions.
jeanette


  or an
> advocacy group for specific positions and views. You can't be both at 
> the same time.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance