[governance] IG caucus - participation issues

[Avri Doria]

Hi,


On 23 nov 2005, at 12.53, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

> 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)

I actually wasn't looking for a like minded group, but rather a  
group, as diverse as it might be, willing to focus on one topic.  I  
agree that there might be a small degree of likemindedness in that  
all would to some extent agree that that we need to participate in  
the IGF in as strong a manner as possible, but other then that, I am  
hoping that there is a diversity of opinion about how this can best  
be done.


>
> 2) process has to be clear and some level of Netiquette adopted so  
> people
> can disagree without being offensive

i agree that lists should have netiquette.  however, the issue over  
what one does when there is a breach is difficult.  the entire regime  
of how one deals with the list member who flaunts rules of netiquette  
is thorny.  as a list caretaker of this list as well as many others,  
i have thought about this a lot, and am not convinced that what we  
now have may not be the lesser of the evils.

> and coordinators should find a way to
> summarize and include positions made by people rather than ignore  
> them-
> there has to be a culture

i think it is also ok, for anyone who sees a need for summarization  
to just do it.  i don't think it needs to come from the coordinators.

and i think that when there is a discussion and then decision, it  
would be good for someone to write it up so that in the future we  
would know what opinions had been considered and could reopen any  
discussion from where we ended the previous time with new opinions  
and arguments instead of rehashing every argument.  I have long  
thought, and argued in the methods wg, that newcomers have a right to  
find faqs and other information that explains what went before, and i  
think current participants also have a right to expect newcomers to  
have read what came before before jumping in.

i also think we should explore using more of the communications tools  
available on the net.  i am certainly willing to work with people who  
want to try and set something up.

> that allows for open discussion and disagreement
> without fear of retribution

i don't recall any acts of retribution on this list.

> or insults-

don't recall many of these either (though i do think there may be  
some in your email), at least not from the so called core group,  
though perhaps we could go through the past mail and find a fair  
number directed against the so called old timers.  perhaps we  
_should_ go through the list and pull out the insults and make the  
accusations specific as opposed to just making general accusations.   
as list caretaker, i am certainly willing to send private email on  
behalf of anyone who thinks they have been insulted to the person  
accused of doing the accusation, politely asking them to try harder  
not to insult people.  of course that is only if that is a role the  
list would want the list caretaker to take.

> 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)

except for the people who i felt were trying to shutout me and some  
long time list members (yes i am not that old a list member  but am  
relatively new - about 1.5 year )  i have not felt that there was an  
effort to stop people from contributing.  personally i know i read  
every post and respond when i think i have something to add, no  
matter who posted.  i have never looked at a posting and said to  
myself: 'oh, new person, yuck, i think i will ignore them'.

it is true, i believe, that not every topic is interesting to  
everyone, and there may be topics that just no one else is either  
interested in or feels they have something to add.  i know i have  
sent posts that got absolutely no traction on the list.  i figure  
that is in the nature of any 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).

better use of the 'bulletin board'  would probably have been a good  
idea.  did not occur to me otherwise i would have recommend it.  too  
bad no one else suggested it either.  i am sure that the coordinators  
would have been glad to do it, if only someone had suggested.  i  
think we are responsible for helping our coordinators coordinate us,  
and if we have suggestions for how they can do better, we should  
recommend, but in a nice way.

>
> 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.

i do _not_ think that either of our coordinators has an agenda that  
overrides their method of coordination.  and think the implicit  
accusation should _not_ stand.  some of us wanted strong people who  
had opinions while some wanted people with no opinions.  while i  
favor people who have strong opinions, this list might do with a  
notion of coordinator who is strictly a servant of the list, i.e. the  
weak notion of coordinator suggested by Vittorio as i understand it.   
of course i am not sure who of the people who have spoken on this  
list would qualify for a such a role.

> 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.

i think this list has been open and fair - in that the opinions are  
split.  and if you had been able to attend the meetings, you would  
have seen how fairly it was run with everyone getting to speak and  
everyone being listened to, though that may be obvious from the notes  
Jeremy sent out.  i hope it is.

> There should also be greater sensitivity to people who may not
> have easy access to connectivity for various reasons especially when
> physically at conferences,

again, this may have been an error - posting meeting times and  
changes - but i don't think it merits the kind of condemnation you  
are suggesting.

> and also that people from different cultures or
> parts of the world may see issues differently.

i have seen that acknowledged frequently on this list.

> 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.

perhaps, but it was the group that decided that the two coordinators  
should also serve the spokespersons and other roles.  and to do this  
required being in the meetings to know exactly what was going on.

>
>  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.

to call it a clique is insulting, and on some lists might even be  
considered a breach of netquette.


a.

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