[governance] Way forward

[Vittorio Bertola]

All,

in reaction to Avri's proposal, I have refined the list of alternatives 
that I presented during this morning's meeting. It is intended to ensure 
that we all understand where we are going: it should be possible to 
clearly map proposals against this list of criteria:

1. SOURCE
We could:
a) create a new entity, or
b) change the structure of this caucus

2. SCOPE
The entity could
a) only deal with procedural aspects of the Forum (i.e., proposals about 
its structure, nomination/accreditation of civil society members, 
interface with secretariat), or
b) also deal with substance (i.e. take positions on IG matters discussed 
by the IGF)

3. NEUTRALITY
The entity could
a) be a neutral "civil society container" where all civil society 
participants meet and that only puts forward broadly supported positions, or
b) be a "group of experts" or "coalition" that pushes specific proposals 
and agendas and is only attended by those who share them

4. MEMBERSHIP
The entity could
a) have NGOs as members, or
b) have individuals as members

5. MULTI-STAKEHOLDERISM
The entity could
a) be open to anyone, or
b) be open only to civil society participants

6. MODEL OF CONSENSUS
The entity could work by
a) full consensus
b) supermajority voting ("measured rough consensus")
c) majority voting

7. MODEL OF LEADERSHIP
The entity could
a) have strong leaders, i.e. people who are supposed according to their 
opinions and who receive the blessing to take positions in name of the 
caucus whenever there is not the opportunity to discuss among members, or
b) have weak leaders, i.e. facilitators that are selected for their 
ability to foster consensus, rather than for their own opinions, and 
cannot take any position unless it was previously agreed by the caucus


Now, coming to my own personal ideas, I think that there are many 
possible combinations, but only a few of them make sense.

Specifically, if we are to build anything that would like to claim the 
role of "Coordinator of Civil Society Interlocutors" (i.e., civil 
society equivalent to what CCBI is for business, for what regards 
IG/IGF) then I think it has to be neutral, open to civil society only, 
and work by full consensus whenever possible, and by rough consensus 
only after it is clear that full consensus is impossible to reach. In 
that case, I would also suggest that it has weak leaders. It should be 
based on individuals, with a request to disclose conflict of interests 
and the ability for the group to reject members in case conflicts are 
excessive. And I think it would be more useful if it became an evolution 
of the caucus, and addressed substance issues as well. I think that 
there is the need for such an entity, in any case.

We should also have clear procedures for drafting. I much liked what 
Amb. Khan was doing in subcom A, that is creating open-ended drafting 
groups that involved all those who were interested in the specific 
paragraphs, and worked by full consensus. In case the text is too long, 
you simply split it up in smaller bits and set up parallel groups. And 
you ensure that each group has a facilitator-type Chair that mediates.

In any case, voting should only be the last, almost-formal step of a 
process where all attempts to build consensus have already been made (no 
matter if this takes time or makes us skip some deadlines! our unity and 
reciprocal trust are much more important than a missed deadline) and not 
a way to push a majority position onto a minority. Voting is a way to 
break deadlocks and ensure accountability, but not to send people away 
by outvoting them.
-- 
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