[governance] Proposal made in the IG Caucus meeting

[Adam Peake]

Avri, Vittorio:  thanks for these ideas, good stuff.  Some comments below.

At 5:54 PM +0100 11/18/05, Avri Doria wrote:
>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.


A group only focused on modalities?  That's not 
what I understood from your description during 
the meeting in Tunis.  What I thought I heard 
sounded more like how to transition the caucus to 
a life after WSIS. Not clear: help please.

No disagreement as such with what you describe 
above/below, just unclear on concept.

Also remembering that the idea for some kind of 
IG Forum goes back to the closing months of the 
Geneva phase (I think mainly from Wolfgang... and 
I think I remember personally not being too 
enthusiastic, duh!  :-)   It seems to be an idea 
other stakeholders strongly associate with civil 
society, with the caucus and also with civil 
society through WGIG.  I am concerned that a new 
group might weaken the positive association.


>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.


Membership and structure along the lines you 
suggest are necessary for both any new working 
group or  future incarnation of the caucus. 
Voting on administrative issues would be good, 
but I think would be unwieldy on substantive 
comments/positions.  Expect the main pressure for 
us to get work done will always be deadlines for 
final calls for comments or a fast approaching 
physical meetings. Voting doesn't fit with that.

I hope we can include more languages, perhaps 
adopting the translation system used for the CS 
plenary list (it would need $, but not too much.) 
See <http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/>  Should 
try to keep this as a key element of whatever 
comes next.

Might also be helpful to think about 
incorporating the caucus/new WG.  Just in case 
some kind of accreditation is required for the IG 
Forum. It should be able to speak in its own name.



>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.
>



Need clarification, but my feeling so far has 
been the new group (which I agree with) is more 
an evolution of the caucus.

And agree with comments below, except on voting 
where I think we need to keep process light.

Adam



>  >
>>  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


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