[governance] Need for coordinators => process going forward

[William Drake]

Hi,

Maybe my morning coffee hasn't kicked in enough yet, but the dialogue and
the process over the past few days seems confused.  Let me try to
reconstruct.  Sorry, long message.

*On Friday I asked what's going on, we didn't have a complete compilation of
finalized proposals, there'd been no discussion about how these should be
framed in relation to the caucus and its priorities, etc. As the presumed
deadline was fast approaching,  I talked to the secretariat, was told we had
time, and wrote to the list saying ok can we please now sort things out,
reach a clear understanding amongst ourselves, and send a complete and final
set early next week. =>
*Nevertheless, eight hours later, Robert went ahead and sent the secretariat
eight of the proposals with some reformatting (I'll have to fix mine).  =>
*Meryem objected to this being done before there was discussion within the
caucus to determine the terms of submission and that all proposals were
finalized and included. =>
*Robert replied that his intentions were honest and his goal was humble. =>
*Mawaki replied echoing Meryem's concerns and proposing that we resubmit as
a caucus, preferably with three themes prioritized.

A few thoughts:

First, as a general matter, we cannot build consensus and function as a
group if people don't:
a.  Directly respond to the specific points and concerns being raised by
others, rather than ignoring them or offering nonsequitur replies;
b.  Keep track of where the dialogue is, who has argued for what, what the
overall blend seems to be with what exceptions/minority positions, and
report these points back to the list so people can appraise and suggest next
steps;
c.  Keep track of external deadlines and make sure there's a calibrated
schedule for all steps leading up to them;
d. Draft and circulate for discussion and agreement, in a timely manner, the
necessary substantive and procedural texts;
e.  Refrain from impromptu actions that pre-empt further collaboration.

These points are not so much intended as criticism of anyone, but rather as
'lessons learned' we should consider adhering to going forward.  In fact, we
have in the past.  If one looks back at how various caucus texts were
drafted and finalized, e.g. the caucus inputs to the two CS summit
declarations, the response to the WGIG report, etc, these things usually
were done.  In a few cases where we were on site at prepcoms and
interventions had to be formulated in response to the governments' immediate
discussions and circulated very quickly, we did have people take exception
to this or that point made, but usually this was a problem of time lags and
the disjuncture between on site and off site in other time zones.
Similarly, while I admit that I at one point misunderstood part of the
process, having looked post hoc at the thread related to the nomcom, this
too has been a model of clarity by comparison.  Avri set clear procedures
and time frames, said what she would and would not do when, and all was
adhered to.

Second, in this particular case, it would seem we may want some course
correction.
a.  The eight proposal that were sent in do not indicate that they have any
relationship whatsoever to the caucus, nor are any other endorsements
mentioned.  On the one hand, this raises the question of why did we bother
submitting and discussing them here, people could have sent their inputs
directly to the secretariat earlier without waiting on a caucus process.  On
the other hand, it undercuts what I thought was a shared objective, which
was to keep the caucus name brand and have governments and other
stakeholders believe we are still organized and doing things that as a
legitimate and noteworthy collective player.
b.  As Meryem and Mawaki note, some proposals made in the past days were not
included in the submission, or may not have been finalized.
c.  Mawaki suggests we need to prioritize and submit a top three.  Others
have said we should not try this.  I suggested Friday that if we don't
prioritize and just send it ten or whatever, there at least ought to be a
note to the secretariat or disclaimer on the submissions (whether separate
or in one file) about why we are sending what we have.  It's not clear that
to me that any consensus has been reached on what to do here.  Mawaki asks
whether I could take care of this.  Obviously not, anything we do has to be
agreed and have buy in, no one person can make decisions for everyone else.

Again, we have a few days.  Chengetai said if we send the secretariat
material by COB Tuesday Geneve it will be ok.  So could we have some
discussion now and do this right?

1.  Let's make sure we have all the proposals in their final form.  If
someone has something that was not included in the bloc of eight sent,
please resend it to the list?

2.  Do we want to try to prioritize or just send them all?  Personally, I
have concerns that some of the topics proposed, while vitally important
generally, are not really IG subjects, or have a loose link to IG.  Others,
most notably the authors, will disagree.  I also think that in many cases
there's absolute zero chance that they'd be accepted as plenary topics,
which raises tactical questions concerning trade-offs and whether it looks
like CS has any shared preferences regarding topics the powers that be will
consider plausible.

3.  Relatedly, the proposals generally do not indicate whether they are
suggestions for plenary sessions or smaller break-out sessions; I think only
mine does.  In some cases, saying this is an idea for a break-out might
increase the chances of a positive reception...

4.  Again, how do we want to frame what's sent: a) individual submissions,
with no relation to the caucus; b) 'proposal from members of the IGC;' or c)
'proposals from the IGC'?  The second is a reasonable fudge, but if we're
sending them all rather than making choices, why fudge when we could just
say in a disclaimer that the caucus is serving in this case as a conduit.

5.  If we did options 4b or 4c, would it make sense to submit a single file
or ten separate ones with a standardized header and disclaimer?


Finally (!), regarding Meryem's need for coordinators point, this is pretty
obvious, but I would suggest that with limited time and bandwidth we not
launch that thread now and first try to get a coherent process in place to
send thematic submissions by Tuesday.

Best,

Bill



> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 3:21 AM
> To: Robert Guerra; Meryem Marzouki
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Need for coordinators - Re: Public policy
> issues to be discussed at the first meeting of the IGF
>
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> You deserve our thanks, indeed, for having stimulated our reaction in
> drafting the theme proposals, and tried to collect them.
> Unfortunately, we hadn't heard from you several days before March 31,
> and there were other proposals that came in after the last day you
> apparently stopped collecting them (e.g. I made a second proposal),
> and other suggestions were also made. For example, if you read just
> the 3 emails that preceded yours last Friday (31st), including the
> one Bill posted about his communication with the IGF Secretariat with
> regard to the submission, you wouldn't certainly have sent out the
> proposals you collected as they were.
>
> Now that any submission is normally overdue, but based on the latest
> information from the secretariat, and considering we agreed not to
> proritize and send just 3 themes, I can only think of a single
> posting of a cluster of themes/files on behalf of the Caucus (if the
> causus is still willing to supplement the first batch sent out by
> Robert).
>
> Could Bill take care of this?
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> --- Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
>
> > Meryem:
> >
> > All I offered to do in a completely volunteer fashion was to
> > encourage a
> >  discussion to issue of themes. I collated the documents and , as i
> > mention in my email, forwarded submissions that did explicitly
> > mention
> > they were being sent directly.
> >
> > The documents were sent in the name of the original authors.
> >
> > My intentions were honest. My goal, a humble one was to encourage
> > people
> > to stay focused on themes and try to compile what was submitted.
> > Not an
> > easy task, but someone had to do it. No one volunteered, and I
> > offered
> > to do the thankless job.
> >
> > Perhaps you would have preferred to do it yourself. But you didn't,
> > neither than anyone else. The key players from the past, seem to
> > have
> > made the strategic decision to instead invest time, energy and
> > efforts
> > on the IGF advisory board.. Why did that happen? well, would be
> > good to
> > know.
> >
> > As for who should co-ordinate efforts on this list. You mention a
> > few
> > names, which is fine. Others may have a different opinion.
> >
> > Now if an election process is justified to name the governance
> > caucus
> > nominees to the IGF advisory board then surely, a process is called
> > for
> > to select coordinators of the governance caucus itself.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> > > Le 1 avr. 06 à 01:16, Robert Guerra a écrit :
> > >
> > >> Dear colleagues:
> > >>
> > >> For the record, I wanted to the members of this list know that
> > Ihave
> > >> just sent a collection of documents to the IGF secretariat.
> > >>
> > >> Sent just before 23:55 Geneva Time, the documents are the
> > submissions
> > >> which I had some doubt weather they had been submitted directly
> >
> > >> already.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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