[governance] IG caucus - participation issues

Thu Nov 24 10:22:56 EST 2005

> 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 

Laina, I am sorry that you missed this information. Since you replied on 
this list to my email in which I confirmed the reservation of rooms for 
the changed meetings, I had reasons to believe you know about the new 
meeting schedule.

For those who were not online, information about the two meetings was 
also on caucus office door and the meeting room door in the civil 
society area.

The first meeting changed because I had forgotten that Adam had another 
meeting at the time originally scheduled. Sorry again, my fault! Since 
Adam's and my term ended it seemed rather important that both of us are 
able to attend the meeting. I spent several hours running around and 
asking about every caucus member I could get hold of whether or not they 
could attend a meeting on Thursday afternoon. It was in my own interest 
to get as many people as possible to attend these rather rare face to 
face caucus meetings.

While it is true that caucus meetings got postponed rather frequently 
over the past two years, we had always good reasons to do so. Often 
enough we changed or canceled meetings because the official prepcom 
schedule changed. I don't see how we could have avoided this.

Finally, I am against creating what you call "like-minded groups". I see 
a lot of merit in discussing our various point of views re government 
intervention and accountability. I certainly have benefited a lot from 
listening to other peoples' positions. However, I am in favor of 
developing a caucus or working group structure that allows us to refer 
to and build upon the compromises we have found over the past months.

jeanette

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) 

Dear Laina, the first meeting

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