[governance] Way forward

[Milton Mueller]

It seems to me that the caucus as it now stands should be considered the
backbone of the CS component of the new IG Forum. It includes all
relevant stakeholders except governments, it is open and easy to join,
and it has a defined history of engaging with the relevant issues. I do
not know how to implement this idea but believe it should be taken
seriously. 

And yes, we will have to have procedures and elections. We started to
deal with this back in Prepcom 2 in Febr. 2005 in Geneva. It is a pity
we didn't carry on, though I certainly understand the time constraints.
Can the ideas or texts circulated at that time be exhumed? 

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> 11/17/2005 3:51 AM >>>
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