[governance] Consensus on the forum issue

[Lee McKnight]

Jeanette,

I composed a more cryptic but similarly framed message yesterday and
then decided not to send without time to ensure it would help clrify
than confuse, but yes what you characterize as a possible compromise is
I believe both correct and the only way the forum gets launched; however
we know others wish for more directive, 'hard-power' authority - which
may or may no be desirable, but isn't happening now. In my as usual
always humbe opinion.

So yes you are on track, and I sympathize with you for adding education
of newbies at the 11th hour to your tasks - but that will be a recurring
phenomenon, also in the (future) forum - so get used to it! : )

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 09/22/05 6:45 AM >>>
Hi Jeanette,

On 9/22/05, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> wrote:
> As far as I understand nobody opposes the idea of a forum in
principle.


Just to clarify, we are still speaking of the forum function when we
say "forum", correct?
If so, I am not opposed (in principle).

> Nobody supports the position of the business sector, which doesn't
even
> recognize the need for a venue where Internet related issues can be
> discussed.

Probably because they support lots of open, transparent, bottom up
venues already?
<snip>
>
> I would like to know if this is a correct description of our
controversy?
>
sounds about right to me.

> If so, I would like to suggest a possible compromise between these
two
> differing views.
> The civil society statement has language to the effect that the
forum
> can make decisions if all participating statekholders agree with
this.
> (Former versions of Bill's statement included this clause. I think
it
> only disappeared for the sake of brevity.) In other words, any
extention
> of the forum's authority would have to be consensus-based and bottom
up.

Hmm <nose of camel under tent>


>
> The second common element I see has been pointed out by Avri. In her
> view, the forum has to earn its authority. It can only gain
political
> authority if it is regarded useful by those who participante in the
forum.
> Decision making authority for the forum would thus depend on two
related
> if's: consensus among the participants and legitimate outcomes. This
> implies that the forum may grow over time. It would start in a very
> modest way with nothing but advisory functions but its authority
could
> increase over time depending on its productivity and legitimacy.
> What do people think? Can we find a consensus along these lines?

I could buy into this if there were well defined limitations about the
roles it could NOT grow to encompass. Maybe.

Thanks for your hard work. It is a creative idea.

--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
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