[governance] IGC Participation

[Danny Butt]

Hi all

I've been offline a lot but just wanted to throw in a few points  
relevant to recent discussion (which has been very productive  
thanks!). I've been doing a lot of governance writing the last couple  
of weeks so please excuse the jargon which I see creeping in, and I  
don't have time to write something shorter and clearer.

* Avri, you will be a great coordinator of the process of transition  
to whatever IGC will become.

* I think that it might be more workable for you in the short term if  
your coordinating role (e.g. making the call on "consensus") is  
limited to and focussed on the IGC processes, rather than the content  
of IGC submissions themselves. I still think the IGC is too diverse  
(or *should be* too diverse if it's even roughly representative) to  
find agreement on many substantive issues, as Meryem suggests. So I  
am reading your offer as being primarily to lead us through our own  
governance reform, and that the various mechanisms for participation  
in IGF etc. will come out of that. Is that in line with your and  
others thinking Avri?

* I don't think elections are going to work because the constituency  
is not set, and I am not in favour of drawing a line around who's  
here and calling that the constituency. This is an opportunity for  
the group who have established a strong seeding presence to grow, but  
it will come at the expense of the coherence that small groups have.  
As I've said before, and this might just be the naivete of a recent  
arrival, but I think the IGC should have a goal of being a place  
where diverse organisations want to have a voice and feel heard,  
where they can see their issues making a contribution to a larger  
platform. This will require sophisticated mechanisms for mediating  
substantive differences in internet governance priorities.

* I think the IGC can gain broad agreement on principles without too  
much conflict. I also think that the problems with existing IG  
regimes stem from thinking that this is sufficient. Because the way  
these principles are operationalised is a political contest among  
people with very different stakes and capacities.  My lesson from  
ICANN is that principles of democracy and openness are not going to  
generate participation if it just means an opportunity to be ignored.  
So I'm interested in knowing whether there's an interest within IGC  
generally to have more sophisticated governance processes that will  
foster diversity and the collation of diverse perspectives, rather  
than a focus on generating consensus. (I like consensus as a  
principle, not so much as a mechanism - and I'd like to see these  
distinguished). I think that will entail some specialisation within  
IGC members and some tricky weaving together of their expertise  
depending on the situation. I am happy to contribute to building  
those frameworks/mechanisms if there's interest.

Regards

Danny


--
http://www.dannybutt.net



On 23/04/2006, at 10:16 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

> Hi Avri and all,
>
> You're right, HR Caucus membership is composed by organizations, or
> groups (i.e. loose groups, coalitions, etc.). But the situation was
> special, Re: Tunisian governerment issues: as most of you may
> remember, the HR Caucus have experienced many problems, with its
> public events systematically disrupted and the tentative meetings of
> caucus members during prepcoms almost prevented.
> To face this situation, right after what happened during Hammamet
> Prepcom in Tunisia (June 2004), the caucus decided that "only
> organizations, not individuals, may join, and that the caucus
> membership implies the agreement to the goal of protecting and
> promoting human rights standards in the WSIS process and in all
> countries of the world, not least the host country of the Summit.",
> as mentioned on its website at http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/
> hr-wsis/#3. This may change now, it has to be discussed by the  
> members.
> In any case, the mailing list archives are public (http://
> www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list/), and the number of
> representatives from member organizations are not limited.
>
> That said, Bill's suggestion wasn't referring to this feature of HR
> caucus membership, but rather to the fact that its membership is
> indeed made public (http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/
> #6). However, what is normal and well accepted for organizations may
> not be that obvious when the membership is mainly composed by
> individuals. I think they should be asked before having their name
> publicly listed as members of the IGC.
>
> Alternatively, since this process may become heavy when there are
> many members, it could be added to the IGC charter that the members
> names will be made public. But I don't think it's acceptable to
> "force" people this way (or to prevent them from becoming members
> when they don't want this publicity). This is closely related to the
> IGC very specificity: it's easier to reach consensus in the HR
> caucus, as anyone can imagine, since members start from well
> established background and a common vision. If I simply remember the
> discussions we had on the IGC list about, e.g. the right to
> development, this would be harder to reach in this caucus. Not to
> mention discussions on more specifically Internet governance related
> issues, and more generally speaking what we use to describe as "IGC
> diversity", i.e. almost as many different IG visions as the size of
> IGC membership: when you're publicly listed as a member of a
> coalition, external people generally understand that you support, in
> some way or another, the coalition's positions. Providing a list of
> reservations in any IGC document would be a nightmare, and in any
> case longer than the document itself:)
>
> In any case, I'm afraid Jeanette's proposal ("to keep the list as it
> is right now and restrict voting rights to those who regard
> themselves as members (as opposed to observers) and thus register as
> voting members") is hardly workable: we would very soon reach a state
> where people on the list (not to mention IGC coordinators) wont know
> whether list subscrivers are observers or members, and we would end
> with a difficult situation. Finally, I would add that problems may
> arise well before, or even without, any vote to consider: it's
> extremely easy to create a complete mess, on purpose or not, by
> discussing endlessly and diluting any issue or decision to make.
> Thus, the problem isn't restricted to voting periods.
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> PS. Regarding your own case, Avri, I dont remember that you have ever
> been on the HR caucus mailing list (CPSR representatives have been
> Bill McIver and Katitza Rodriguez), and I'll add you right now.
> Another explanation may be that the list management software we use
> automatically removes addresses after too many bounces.
>
>
> Le 22 avr. 06 à 17:53, Avri Doria a écrit :
>
>>> On 21 apr 2006, at 19.42, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1.  Charter.  I've supported this before and still do.  However, I
>>>> would still
>>>> go beyond it, and suggest that we can't have properly functioning
>>>> consensus
>>>> building/voting on anything procedural or substantive, or indeed
>>>> democratic
>>>> legitimacy and accountability, if we don't have any idea who the
>>>> electorate/constituency is.   Hence, once a charter has been
>>>> assembled, I would
>>>> like to see people opt in and publicly become listed members of
>>>> the caucus, in
>>>> the same manner as the Human Rights Caucus,
>>
>> I though the HRC was composed of individuals from various
>> organizations and that the organizations were the members.  I don't
>> really know.  i think i was on the HRC caucus list for a while based
>> on CPSR membership, but seem to have fallen off.  So I am not sure
>> how they are organized or how membership works.  Maybe somebody from
>> the HRC can explain.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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