[governance] individuals & groups

[Lee McKnight]

Hi Danny, everyone,

Having accomplished the significant administrative task of 
proving we can still be a mailing list with a coordinator - that only 
took 6 months : ) -  I agree it is time to look to longer term,
more fundamental issues. 

I think we need to step back some and think more 
about the Internet Governance Forum as a new international 
institution, other ongoing Internet governance processes, 
and our individual and collective CS policy goals. 

And how they relate to this caucus. 

Personally I will admit to being comfortable in the current 
non-structure, kind of fun to watch the foodfights if people 
aren't usually aiming at you.

But I also recognize that even non-institutions evolve in response to the 
changing landscape around them.

And here it is starting to feel like a caucus in the political
 sense, even if by current design it is an extremely amorphous 
and slow acting politiical animal.  

 Whether it needs to become a different kind of beast, 
or spawn several new sub-species to deal with additional 
ongoing Internet governance isssues in a coordinated fashion, is 
the open question.   I list a few more below and my first answers, reserving the 
right to change my mind : )

Should  'delegates' to the caucus from major NGOs have more formal 
expectations and privileges?  (no, but they're welcome to help as much as they can)

Does the caucus need a more formal outreach effort to groups and
 individuals worldwide? (yes of course - so you Danny & Vittorio should get to work on that asap : )

Can it 'issue' position statements in the name of the collectivity or only for individual
 members of the IGC? (yes when rough consensus reached, falling back to listed
 indivudal members being free to ally using the IGCs brand name for identification if 
not endorsement purposes, when even rough consensus is not reached. I think that actually 
worked well in retrospect over the past couple years. Formal voting is an option for when suitable 
tools & issues are present. )
 
Whether/if budget should be sought, etc etc -  (no comment, IGP also has its hand out: )
are some of the agenda items to consider.  

I have previously argued for the IETF as perhaps the right mental 
model for comparison.  Since we're talking about (re-)fashioning the global 
political architecture around the Internet.  So we're individual members,
perhaps backed by organizations. Obviously the analogy breaks down at some point 
but if you compare the IETF post-commercial Internet launch to its earlier incarnations, 
the IETF had to scale and deal with many more issues and demands - but also 
being careful to draw the line at what was not its responsibility. 
That's the challenge here, to define what the IGC should do versus what others should do. 
While defining wht the IGF should be.

In an 'architectural' way that leaves everyoine flexibility for the future but delineates roles 
and expectations now.

(Then the IGF is more of an 'ICANN-like' structure with governments and business throwing 
their weight around. And of course the challenge is to exert enough counter-weight to not be 
crushed as has happened to some on this list more than a few times over the years in other 
venues. One of whcih I just named)

This also suggests that Avri's election by acclimation - and by proving her merit by 
successfully managing the Nomcom - is perfectly reasonable in an organization in which 
expertise is a prime currency and source of credibility.  Kind of like...how someone gets to lead 
IETF working groups or the organization itself. 

A volunteer mailing list can only do so much, but in certain circumstances more than 
other forms of organization.  There's a lot of reasons IETF stayed as squishy and virtual in 
structure as it has. 

Is the IGC sustainable as is into an era in which it is
 interacting with a new UN institution? 

Avri's answer is no, and on that I think she is right. 

But what the IGC caucus will look like versus any number of alternatives including  
new specialized cross-group coordinatinng mechanisms around the issues settled on as 
part of the IGF's version 1.0 agenda -  well that's still a little fuzzy in my crystal ball.

During this transition period we should all keep patting Avri on the back - and maybe pitch 
in with a shoulder or more as Avri does her Sisyphean imitation to get us to a new collective point 
of rough consensus on the above & more  - in a  mere few months! : )

Lee

PS: Oh yeah in the midst of that we need to be
communicating/aiding our 'reps' on the MAG about what CS 
wants to see at the agenda-setting 1st IGF meeting. One more miinor matter to focus on!  



 

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

>>> Danny Butt <db at dannybutt.net> 4/24/2006 10:31 PM >>>


On 24/04/2006, at 7:40 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Things could be different if you were to build a global,
> complex representative structure, but as long as this caucus is  
> meant to
> be the "think-tank" of that handful of active people in the field, all
> of us should be peers; and I think that we should not forget that the
> Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, has been up to now
> very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely active individuals.


So, for example, the 100million-plus Internet users in China aren't  
here because... they're not active? Or that they're not interested in  
the rights of users? Or civil society doesn't exist there? Or there  
are too many people for them to be lonely? Or they're not  
individuals?...

I'll be blunt with my opinion: if the IGC doesn't scale in capacity  
and diversity it won't be taken seriously. I think that assessment is  
in keeping with the annoyance expressed at the process of  
coordinating our IGF theme proposals. The "working methods" in place  
have not scaled, I don't see how they can be taken as being  
successful or not in need of significant change. Well, I can see that  
if the vision of civil society input into internet governance is  
30-40 people setting the agenda then things are fine. But I would  
cast people's mind back to the comments by the Indian delegation at  
the presentation of the WGIG report where the question of CS  
legitimacy and representativeness has already been raised.

 From my point of view those criticisms will best be addressed by a  
strategy of fostering openness and participation - especially by NGOs  
working in the field. After all, NGOs are staffed and run by  
individuals who have gathered resources to further particular issues.  
In the political process they become markers of the ongoing relevance  
of particular issues (e.g. it's not from an individual who'll change  
their mind next week), or in some cases a proxy for a group of people  
interested in those issues.

You can't write policy based on individuals. Well you can, when  
you're a small group of engineers and enthusiasts setting up a  
network. But to bring up the role of the individual in global policy  
participation (I mean process, not the idea of the individual in  
human rights) is pure ideology when so many of them are not here. We  
are talking about decisions that affect hundreds of millions of  
people! With a background in user experience testing, I've become  
very used to the idea that it's hard to know what the user is  
thinking without testing it. Because users behave surprisingly  
differently to oneself. I don't trust myself - or anyone on this list  
- to represent the rights of the individual user, whoever they are.  
Thus, my previous point about effective mechanisms for participation  
and accountability to our diverse constituency. "Over-organisation is  
counterproductive", it's true, but that statement also a common  
ideology among those who do well out of a laissez-faire setup and  
would prefer to not have to negotiate with different views.

I couldn't care less about being an individual in this process. What  
I care about are the issues: human rights, development, diversity,  
etc. I'd be ecstatic if I didn't have to spend my time working on  
them, if there were NGOs on board who could use their capacity to do  
a better job than I do, if the IGC didn't need to exist because the  
issues were always on the table. I don't spend my time here because I  
want to be a part of 30-40 smart and active people: I am looking for  
a productive platform where my contributions can make a difference -  
and where other people working on them can make a difference. The  
combination of individualism and wanting fewer seats at the table  
seems to me to be the largest barrier to this being the kind of  
platform I think CS should represent.

Regards

Danny

On 24/04/2006, at 7:43 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>
> Vittorio:
>
> I personally would be quite disturbed if the caucus took the road  
> of the organizational membership, similarly to the HR Caucus (which  
> however had some specific reasons for that, as pointed out before).  
> I would recommend that caucus members do not wear hats while  
> working here, and do not act as representatives of this or that  
> NGO, but as individual human beings.  I think that we should not  
> forget that the Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field,  
> has been up to now very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely  
> active individuals. I was already concerned by the idea of  
> organizational endorsements in our selection processes, as if names  
> put forward by organizations were for that very reason more  
> deserving of consideration. I would not be able to recognize myself  
> in this caucus any more, if it became practically dominated by a  
> few big NGOs.
>
>
>
> Wolfgang:
>
> I can only support Vittorio. Over-organization is counter- 
> productive, as you can see from the four years of ICANNs ALAC .  
> Vittorio, why you did not argue within ALAC when you chaired the  
> body as you do now?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
> -- 
> Danny Butt
> db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net 
> Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com 
> Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
> Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200
>

_______________________________________________
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