[governance] A minimalist solution

Mon Apr 3 10:19:59 EDT 2006

Bill,

First, let me make some of my points clearer:

- I never meant that nominating people to the MAG (and the process to  
reach this goal) was bad or should be stopped. Just expressing  
disappointment on the submission process, in comparison.

- I don't necessarily want to drop proposal by any caucus members.  
Just pointing out how strange it could now appear that the IGC  makes  
a proposal already made by another caucus. Other caucuses also want  
their "brand" appearing in the process, that's normal. An what does  
that mean to have same submissions from different caucuses (this is  
different from a _common_ submission) ? What it means with regards to  
CS (lack of) coordination? For this reason, wouldn't it be preferable  
to leave these proposals made by African CS ?

Now on your comment and suggestions:

- I understand your comment on the letter I proposed. In any case, it  
would have had a meaning only if accompanyied by a set of priority on  
all submissions. Let's forget about this

- Your minimal suggestion... is really minimal! Why not including  
something along your previous suggestion, at least:

> Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a  
> standardized
> caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a
> disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus  
> space but
> there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why  
> they're all
> in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to  
> write this,
> but there's no point if there's not much interest here in  
> preserving the
> brand etc...

Meryem

Le 3 avr. 06 à 15:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>
>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem  
>> Marzouki
>
>> However, now we are even beyond this approach (see my other message
>> with subject "what a mess"). The governance caucus shouldn't even
>> talk off submissions made by other constituencies, this meaning
>> dropping off Mawaki's and Ken's proposal (3 proposals all in all)
>> from any IGC "claim".
>
> While I understand your concern, I don't know that we could reach  
> consensus
> to drop proposals by caucus members just because of their other
> affiliations.
>
>> Remaining proposals are: Parminder's, Bill's, Garth's, Ginger's.
>> Maybe other to come (APC? others?).
>> The status of Milton's proposal (under IGP) is unclear w.r.t. to any
>> IGC "claim".
>
> Yes, since they use the caucus format but make no mention of the  
> caucus.
>
>> This situation is really a pity. This shows where we are, not only in
>> the governance caucus, but in CS as a whole. No priority, not even
>> coordination, only weakness. Not even a status quo, but steps
>> backwards. And be sure governments and the IGF secretariat will take
>> due note of this.
>
> Yes
>
>> I would rather propose that a letter be sent to the IGF, asking them
>> to kindly publish it on its website, when all proposals will be
>> received, saying that the IGC has made no proposal under its name on
>> purpose, so as to let all CS component to freely express its
>> priorities and to demonstrate the need for a large number of working
>> groups. The IGC acting here as a facilitator forsome CS components
>> w.r.t. IGF issues.
>
> I can't help thinking that anyone outside the caucus who read this  
> letter
> would wonder why they're reading it.  It's an internal process  
> point of no
> interest to anyone else.
>
>> I'm also wondering how members of this caucus may dare think of
>> nominating people to the MAG, when it's not even possible to gather
>> proposals and send them in a consistent and responsible way. It's
>> really disappointing.
>
> Here we disagree.  While the proposal submission process was a  
> mess, the
> nomcom process worked and should go forward.  I see no advantage to
> abandoning it now, and doubt that all the people who agreed to  
> participate
> would accept doing so.
>
> Back to the proposals: Since rather few people have participated in  
> the
> dialogue on this matter, I don't think we can achieve consensus by  
> tomorrow
> on any kind of standardized framing or disclaimer text that goes  
> beyond the
> one thing we agreed on, which was to employ Bertrand's six point  
> framework
> for justifying the proposals.  So why don't we simply leverage that  
> to the
> end of establishing some caucus branding?  A centralized process of
> collection and resubmission would be nice, but if that's too  
> ambitious, I'd
> suggest that people simply send directly to the secretariat revised
> proposals that begin with the following statement:
>
> [NB: The below is in the standardized format agreed by the civil  
> society
> Internet Governance Caucus for IGF theme submissions from its members]
>
> This would give us an element of caucus branding, making it clear  
> that the
> proposals are from caucus members, and anyone looking at them would  
> infer
> that they were probably discussed in the caucus.  As to anything  
> else, like
> does this mean each proposal is actually endorsed by the caucus  
> collectively
> or does the caucus view some issues as priorities relative to  
> others, well,
> we creatively fudge the questions and let them draw their own  
> conclusions.
>
> Attached by way of example is what I will be sending the  
> secretariat, unless
> someone has a better idea soon.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
> <IGF Proposal-- WSIS Principles on Internet Governance.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> 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