[governance] IG caucus - participation issues

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Adam- sorry if you misread my email as an attack rather than as suggestions
for improvement. I am glad Jeanette was great about responding to my email
in the right spirit.

Laina 

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 5:12 AM
To: Laina Raveendran Greene
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues

Laina,

I really don't appreciate your email.  Just my personal opinion, but I'm
particularly tired of your attacks on Jeanette.  She doesn't deserve it, no
one does, we've all worked too hard.

I can't think of a more open, transparent and inclusive WSIS civil society
group than this caucus. It's been hard work, sometimes frustrating. But it's
also been good to see the caucus contribute so much to WSIS, and it's been
great getting to know, like, trust and respect many people through the
process.

I know the caucus has some very opinionated participants, but 'new members'
break-in by being equally opinionated. And the last time someone did that
they (rightly) changed the course of about 2 years discussion. That stung
for a while, but we got over it. If we ever gave ourselves more time for
discussion rather than running up against our deadlines then the environment
might relax. Perhaps things will improve now we aren't reacting to an
intergovernmental process.

I'm sorry you weren't able to join any of the caucus meetings. 
Perhaps if you had tried to communicate your schedule in plain text rather
than a 420kb jpg file someone might have noticed you weren't available.  One
of your earlier emails suggests you knew about the 2nd meeting so I'm
confused as to why you would say otherwise.

Anyway, to be honest, I have no interest in whether you think I should stay
on as coordinator or not. Jeanette and I agreed long ago we'd do this
together. If that's OK with the caucus then we're grateful for any continued
vote of confidence, it means a lot and we'll stay on for the transition.  If
not, then that's also fine, we'll move on and see what we can all make of
the IG Forum. I'm just tired of your uninformed criticism and back-stabbing.

My apologies to all for this email, but I'm sick of the unpleasantness.

Thanks,

Adam


At 9:53 AM -0800 11/23/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:
>
>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


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