[governance] IG caucus - participation issues

Wed Nov 23 12:53:28 EST 2005

Dear Milton,

Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason here and not ignoring Guru's
email. Having said that, I do think we do have some serious issues of
participation and process that we need to address as we move forward. Whilst
I totally understand that you may be right about Jeanette's commitment to
openness and consensus building, it usually is processes and perceptions
that allow such inclusion and participation from all. There are many who
checked out from discussions seeing statements as was quoted by Guru in the
email below. These do NOT help people feel included at all, and many like
Rhonda have even mentioned how they feel ignored.

I myself have been involved in building consensus in Asia over the earlier
days of Internet Governance debates (during the Green, White paper, IFWP,
etc) and understand TOTALLY the frustration of feeling "disrupted" by new
voices. But there is always a way to handle this to allow people to feel
included e.g. to give a quick summary of previous discussions pros and cons,
and try to understand the position being expounded by the person and see how
this can be included. It is often the process that ensures the outcome is
the right one. True, this list being open and having so many people, it is
hard to build rough consensus. However, having no clear archive means to
review past debates, makes it harder for "new" participants to see what was
discussed and compromised from before, so this should not be held against
them. "older" players however SHOULD NOT also dismiss new participants at
all or assume they don't know what they are talking about.

Hence, I do strongly believe that several issues are important for
consideration in the steps forward:

1) there is validity to Avri's suggestion on smaller groups with membership
so there can be "likeminded" people making "likeminded" positions (I had
actually suggested this for WSIS but there was a strong need to try to
represent all CS instead of a likeminded group. I saw governments and
private sector doing this so why not CS)

2) process has to be clear and some level of Netiquette adopted so people
can disagree without being offensive and coordinators should find a way to
summarize and include positions made by people rather than ignore them-
there has to be a culture that allows for open discussion and disagreement
without fear of retribution or insults- and this can then lead to better
decisions or compromises made as people will feel like contributing (see
Danny and others like him (including me) who stopped contributing due to the
lack of such an open culture on the list)

3) process has to be clear for both offline and online. It was very ironical
that those who did not attend Tunis were better informed than many of us who
were in Tunis. I missed both IG meetings as it was originally scheduled for
Thursday at 10am and then got cancelled to a later time and another time on
Friday. Thursday afternoon I had another event I was involved in which I had
already notified everyone about, and because Internet connectivity was hard
for me at Kram and my hotel, and so I was not informed and could not
participate (I checked that CS notice board daily but this was not used by
IG caucus and we did not even know there was an IG caucus room as this was
not announced) Only those in the small group seem to know. I saw this even
in Geneva Prepcom, where meetings were constantly being cancelled changed
etc by email and those of us without connectivity were excluded).

4) we need one or two coordinators who understand the role and function of a
coordinator i.e. need for open and transparent processes and MORE
IMPORTANTLY, do not have any personal agenda that overrides how you
coordinate. Coordinators should be more committed to  ensuring open and
transparent positions for everyone to be heard rather than pushing their own
agendas, therefore keeping meeting times as much as possible and keeping
process etc. There should also be greater sensitivity to people who may not
have easy access to connectivity for various reasons especially when
physically at conferences, and also that people from different cultures or
parts of the world may see issues differently. It is also important that
whilst heavy negotiations are going on, that instead of both coordinators
being in the negotiating room and meetings getting cancelled, one should
keep meeting times to ensure consistency etc. In other words, coordinators
should not also be the negotiators at the same time. This messes up the
process of keeping consistency, openness, transparency etc for those who may
not be as connected as others.

I am comfortable and hope that Adam stays on, but am concerned about the
other statements which makes me feel that there is no comfort or skills to
hear and include new players. The Information Society grows everyday and we
have to live with new players and even "old" ones who may not have joined
the clique sooner. 

I offer these quick food for thought since I feel that Guru's email has
validity and may represent those of many others. I was funnily kept better
informed through my government delegation than through civil society. Not
everyone has this benefit and we need to make sure if we are to speak for
CS, we need to find a way to include and allow as many CS to participate as
possible. 

I do understand that during negotiations, time is of the essence but we
should not compromise process at the expense of making something happen. If
however people prefer compromising process to enable some CS viewpoints to
be expressed, then it would be best to split up into several working groups
within IG Caucus into working groups based on region e.g.. Asia, Africa, etc
or according to issues e.g. privacy, security etc. This way we do not all
have to agree on everything and we do not end up with a list that is more
focused on getting results (having clear objectives and process spelt out
ahead of time as Avri suggested).

I therefore hope we can give some thought on form, process and substance so
we can be more effective at Athens in May/July 2006.

Regards,
Laina

PS Finally back home and finally connected to the Internet again!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:24 PM
To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues

Guru:
As I understand Jeanette's position it is more the expression of frustration
at the extreme difficulty of trying to get coherent positions out of CS
organs, when you have an open list in which someone who joined yesterday
mixes with people who have been talking about an issue three years, two
years, 8 months, etc. I know for a FACT that Jeanette supports an open list
and expanding participation in the caucus. 

Obvioously it's important to get agreed, consensus positions from the caucus
when possible - especially about organizational issues and statements. As I
have discussed with her, the real issue here is not the "disruption" of new
participants, but the lack of procedures for voting or some other collective
decision making mechanism. 

>>> "Guru at ITforChange.net" <guru at itforchange.net> 11/18/2005 8:49:16 AM
>>>
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

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