[governance] Proposal made in the IG Caucus meeting

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Today I made a proposal in the IG caucus on a new WG to be formed.   
this is the substance of that proposal, a proposal that still needs  
work.

Before starting that description, I want to state that I personally  
do not see this as something that replaces the IG Caucus, I value the  
wide ranging scope of discussions that make up this caucus and value  
the attempts this caucus makes to reach consensus on issues,  
difficult ass that sometimes is.  I am proposing a new working group  
that would focus solely on the issues the modalities involved in the  
formation of the IGF over the next year.  This WG would have a  
limited charter and could be assumed to end once the period of  
formation for the forum was completed.

With the decision to create an IGF, civil society has the opportunity  
to contribute in a substantial way to the formation of the Forum.  My  
feeling, however, is that we need to be able to do several things in  
this work, things that are not always consistent with the the current  
nature of the IG Caucus:

- need to focus on one topic and exclude all out of scope content
- need to produce recommendations quickly
- need to be able to quickly decide whether a statement can be presented
   as coming from the group

The Focus of the group (charter still being written) would be on the  
modalities of the Forum's formation and on CS participation in this  
forum.  Discussion in the group would be limited to this topic.  To  
be clear this is not meant to be a like minded group, except perhaps  
in that the members should be people dedicated to the formation of  
the forum and to civil society having a significant role in that  
formation and in the forum itself.  It is meant to be a single focus  
WG - formation of the IGF and Civil society's role in that forum.

I am recommending that this be a group with a membership criteria:   
membership based on being willing to sign the charter (via paper or  
electronic signature) indicating support of the charter and  
indicating agreement with the procedures set by the WG.

I am also recommending that decisions made in the IGF WG be made by  
some form of electronic voting, with each individual member getting  
one vote.  Substantive issues (electing chairs, removing chairs,  
approving statements, changing charter, ...) would require a 2/3 rd  
majority, while procedure matters would requires a simple majority.   
I would recommend that quorum involve 50% of those eligible to vote.   
I know this is a simple voting procedure and there are many much more  
developed methods for voting, but I would prefer to avoid complexity  
as much as possible.

during conversation I have had about this, there have been several  
questions asked:

How one avoids capture in a voting scenario?  my first idea is that  
after the initiation of the working group, someone needs to be a  
signed member of the group for a month before they are qualified to  
vote, though they can participate fully other then that.

how does one deal with inactive members:  to my my mind, some can be  
active as long as they pay attention and vote.  i would recommend  
that after 3 votes someone has failed to cast, they become inactive  
and do not have a vote again until they have registered a vote again,  
i.e they register one vote that is not counted in order to reactivate  
themselves.

Will this steal the energy out of the Caucus:  I don't think so.   
there are so many governance issues to be discussed in the caucus  
including continued refined of oversight issues, the principles for  
public policy, governance aspects of the multitude of issues one  
might want to apply governance to,  or Vittorio's idea for a bill of  
rights.

since I started writing this I saw that Vittorio sent some categories/ 
choice.  l will try to address a few that i dont think i covered  
already.


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

As I explain above i think the caucus is a good thing in itself and  
has a lot of continuing value.  i agree with many that we should be  
thinking about how to improve its structure and processes and intend  
to participate in those discussion.  I think Vittorio's suggestions  
for the caucus have merit and should be discussed in the caucus.

I see this as a separate thing.


>
> 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)
>

slightly more then a.  some of the issues about CS particpation may  
be substantive and not just procedural.  Also I believe discussion  
about how the forum should be organized are substantive and go beyond  
a notion of procedural.



>
> 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
>

open to all.  how does one identify an expert.
i see no problem with a group of experts going off and forming expert  
teams.  i don't think this should try to be that.


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

indivuduals


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

I have been thinking about this since Milton recommeneded it be  
multistakeholder.  All in all I favor that it be for civil society.


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

    for substantive stuff


> c) majority voting
>

     for procedural cruft



>
> 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
>

as i said in the meeting, i tend toward a middle way on this.  i  
believe we should have chairs who should feel free to speak on behalf  
of what they believe the WG supports.  and if they are very wrong  
very often and unrepentant they get voted out.

---

i am not fixed on any of these ideas just trying to find solution to  
some of the barriers i think we have in the caucus to developing a  
rapid working style on work that needs to be done efficiently over  
the next few months.

a.

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