[governance] coordinating the IGC

Sun Apr 23 04:35:37 EDT 2006

Dear list,

what about drafting by doing? We have to clarify a lot of procedural issues - and I support here Avri´s approach - and we have to have workable mechanisms. But please, do not try to be too specific which will underminde flexibility in the future. The real challenge comes with the substance. We should not repeat the painful discussions we had in the WSIS process between the CS Bureau and CS Content&Themes. We should not only preach "bottom up", we should practice it. Do not try to be perfect, try to be good. We need procedures and methods which help us to clarify issues, to develop policies and to draft language for negotiation processes. 

This brings me to the next point: Should the IGC concentrate on the IGF? Should it include "enhanced cooperation"? And what about ICANN? And what about other broader IG issues under dicussion in the OECD, ITU, WIPO, UNESCO, The Global Alliance etc.? I believe that the IGC has the potential to become a key platform representing non-governmental and non-for-profit constituencies (the "third voice") in the coming broader Internet debate.  The way how the Caucus is designed is very different from other bodies. Lets keep this difference. Lets test it out how such an innovative NewMechanism (NeMe) can develop. We all need energy, engagement, optimism and patience. Think big, start small, move fast. Good times with great challenges :-)))

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Sa 22.04.2006 20:13
An: David Allen
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] coordinating the IGC

Hi, 

Thanks for your suggestion.

As I mentioned earlier, the reason I was making my suggestion was because I thought that the IGC was in a transition state that required re-organization.  I also indicated that I would only be willing to take the role if there was consensus on the proposal for ways to move ahead.

I do not believe that the status quo in the IGC is workable, and I don't believe that the old way of picking coordinators works.  True I was asking for consensus on a transition role in order to facilitate reorganization but I was not asking to be chosen coordinator in the old way of acclimation.  That is why I put forward a proposal that required full consensus before I wouls assume the role of coordinator.

But I accept that other participants have a different viewpoint.  As several have indicated already there is a preference for picking 2 co-coordinators and moving forward as we have in the past,  I take that to mean that there is not consensus on the suggestion I offered and that there is not a strong feeling that we need to reorganize before we can move ahead. 

I accept that and might even accept Bill as an IGC coordinator in your sort of proposal - assuming it finds consensus.  I am not, however, interested in serving in that circumstance and decline participation in any slate of co-cos.  I also do not think that having a discussion between Bill and myself is the way to resolve the identity and methods of the IGC.

At this point, I think it is important for the IGC to figure out what, if anything, we can reach consensus on.

thanks

a.

On 22 apr 2006, at 11.48, David Allen wrote:

	Let me make a suggestion here.

	If the caucus can declare a coordinator by acclamation (or consensus or whatever set of words fit), then it can do so for co-coordinators.  In fact, co-coordinators would seem most suited to the circumstances.

	Co-coordinators are in the (brief) tradition of the caucus.  If one person is to be selected in a special way, certainly two can be selected.  With this as the tradition it seems we even need the balance of co-coordinators, if there is to be special consensus selection.

	But far and away most important, there is already a proposal before the caucus, requesting two people to take the helm at this special moment:  Avri and Bill. 

	I am traveling and unable to search my archive.  But I know there is one post already, asking Bill and Avri to step forward.  I am all but certain there is more than one post.  The proposition is on the table, and the suggestion here only reminds us.

	Then the caucus does not have immediately to adopt provisions such as staggered terms or nominating committees and elections. SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  We see, in posts just the last little bit, there are natural questions raised to discuss these matters.  Instead, Avri and Bill can have a productive dialog between themselves, and with the caucus, to reach considered conclusions.

	For instance, continuity for the caucus seems to turn more on cohesion in the group, than on mechanisms such as staggered terms.  But such structural arrangements might still be helpful (or not).  Two people, to whom the caucus has already turned, can see that discussion through, to an effective conclusion.  If there turns o t to be a need to stagger remaining terms of these two consensus coordinators, that can be sorted out too.

	Likewise the selection process to be used later can get suitable consideration.  But especially, a host of other matters that shape cohesion and effectiveness will have the benefit of two whom the caucus has already turned to.  As discussed by others, this is a special time when the caucus might outfit itself to be an effective partner in the IGF and other, related governance pursuits.  The caucus can, and it seems is well advised to, take advantage of the leadership of two it has already identified.

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