[governance] IG caucus - participation issues and structure

[Danny Butt]

Hi

Good to see the focus on the group moving forward and the desire for  
continuity. It's a valuable forum that has been created and will play  
an important role. A few points on the list, group and structure that  
I hope are constructive.

* I spent most of this year working on Internet Governance, and in  
most of my work I represent interests that are classically "civil  
society": sub-national cultural movements, gender issues,  
colonisation, movements against economic inequality, etc. So I feel  
that this is nominally the right place for me to contribute those.  
However, there is much more discussion on this forum about the role  
of governments than any of the issues I'd seek to forward. My  
motivation toward participating in this group's work is low, and I  
feel like, as Guru describes, one of the 'new members' who is  
'disrupting the process'.

If the main players in the group really believe that it was better  
for civil society interests when it was smaller and easier to gain  
consensus, then there is not much point for me to participate. I  
think the group either needs to 1) believe that consensus is  
desirable on its interventions or 2) accept that as it becomes more  
representative of civil society, consensus will *only get harder*,  
and there will be structures needed to manage that. Or to turn that  
around: if the group looks like a place that can foster a wide  
diversity of views and link them into the policy processes without  
diluting their substantive content, then a wider range of people will  
feel that this group is their place and it will grow. Once that  
decision is made, certain organisational structures will follow.

* This is why IETF rough consensus doesn't work - the group is trying  
to clarify public policy issues to advocate in processes controlled  
by others, rather than agree on how to make something work. I never  
understood the need to agree on a "position" on things like  
governmental oversight. Why not produce a document that highlights a  
diversity of views, and clarifies how they relate to each other?  
Politics is not a technical protocol (though it has technical  
protocols).

* Mailing lists are good for raising issues and general information  
dissemination, but terrible places for managing collaborative  
document development. I think the Wiki has taken hold as a stable  
platform for that work, and it would complement the mailing list well.

* Because Civil Society is so diverse, there are a lot of competing  
areas of expertise and languages. Some level of specialisation in  
issues would be helfpul. For example, I have little interest in the  
governmental oversight discussion other than noting how unfruitful it  
seems to be. Best to take me out of that. On the other hand, I'd be  
interested in working with a group on cultural diversity issues on  
internet governance, providing that the group was really interested  
in the topic, so we don't need to have discussions like "how do we  
define culture anyway?" (answer: why not start with UNESCO's very  
detailed one and adjust as necessary), discussions which are as  
irritating to me as the "We need to stop the US Government  
controlling the Root Servers!" lines are to the technical community.

Thanks to Adam and Jeanette for the forum. I'll watch developments  
with interest.

Regards

Danny

--
http://www.dannybutt.net
Cultural Futures - December 1-5, 2005 - http:// 
culturalfutures.place.net.nz

On 19/11/2005, at 2:49 AM, Guru at ITforChange.net wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting ..
>
> While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the  
> third time in
> two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working for a  
> long time
> with its members achieving consensus and how in the recent past, after
> PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process.  
> In the CRIS
> meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in the  
> forum that
> such things do not happen'
>
> In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to  
> her view,
> saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to have  
> different views
> and perspectives.
>
> I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be  
> propagated
> by a person moderating the caucus.
>
> It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the  
> process. I
> suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would  
> like
> these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be  
> asked to stop
> making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf of  
> the IG
> caucus.
>
> Guru
>
> -- 
> regards
> Guru
> IT for Change
> www.ITforChange.net
> Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities
> _______________________________________________
> 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