[governance] individuals

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think the model breakdown is useful. And i agree with a preference  
for the network model.  The academic and network architect in me,  
makes it tempting to get theoretical and argue that a network where a  
node can be either an individual of another node of individuals is a  
good thing, but I will avoid that.  I think it is important though  
that it is a model that works in that the both the individuals and  
the NGO have the opportunity to participate and the individual who is  
part of an NGO can participate both directly and indirectly through  
the NGO, giving the NGO extra weight by virtue of it multiple levels  
of participation in the network.

I am not sure sure though that I understand how you decide that CS- 
IGC as currently constituted more as model 2 (market place ruled by  
the few who control resources) then 3 (cooperation/collaboration/ 
coalition).

While I would not argue that things are perfect, hence my desire to  
see a bit or reorganization and charter writing, elements of the  
IGC's actuality lead me to think that at least we are trying to  
achieve model 3:

- Most discussions and decisions are made via email, which for all  
its clunkiness is as available to everyone as possible in today's world.
- often individuals from very different backgrounds and perspectives  
work together in loose and ad-hoc coalitions to get things done.
- travel for many to events in Geneva and elsewhere is subsidized for  
those from the developing world, though certainly not to the extent  
one could wish for.

In terms of language, yes, English is still the language of least  
common denominator.  The translation service provided for the plenary  
list is a good addition, and is something we should consider trying  
to get for this caucus, though finances is an issue in doing so.  And  
to get financing i think we need to define ourselves, our goals and  
our methods.

I personally agree that outreach is a critical function, but argue  
that it is not something that is ever fully achieved, i.e. we can  
never do enough.  but I think this caucus does do outreach.  e.g.  
without arguing that the IGC was the one true voice of CS, the caucus  
did do  outreach when selecting its nominees for the IGF  
multistakeholder advisory group.  And while not assuming that sending  
notification to the plenary was enough we sent to many other lists  
and asked people to pass it on (the network model - i.e. use of  
broadcast and epidemic routing mechanism).  We need to do more and  
need to do it all the time.  I personally think that this  
conversation on the list on our identity is another form of outreach  
to the silent members of the list.  In my mind it is an attempt to  
find out what we need to do to be more open to those who had enough  
interest in the subject to sign up for the list yet who haven't found  
the way open for their participation - for whatever reasons.

but as I said i agree we need to do more outreach, and i think need  
to have some members who think enough of outreach to put some focus  
into the ways in which it can be done effectively.   having been  
brought up in the open list world where an open list was considered  
to be the best way to openness and for reaching out, i have learned  
since becoming invovled in civil society that this is not adequate.   
i still don't know what it take to achieve sufficient opennes and  
outreach and am hoing these conversations brings that out.  other  
then multiple language capability - which is still difficult (either  
we all learn multiple languages or we need automatic translators),  
what is needed?

a.


On 26 apr 2006, at 07.27, Gurstein, Michael wrote:

> To get a bit theoretical here, I think there are 3 separate models at
> play...
> 	1. the "representational" model which is inherently
> centralizing, and top down i.e. top-down institutions set up rules  
> that
> require others to similarly produce top-down  
> "representatives" (however
> they are selected) to "speak on behalf" of others i.e. constituencies.

>
> 	2. the "market" model which is inherently competitive and
> individualistic i.e. where individuals (or collectivities operating as
> pseudo individuals) compete in some sort of marketplace for some  
> sort of
> set of rewards (in this case influence on global public policy) and
> where "success" in this marketplace depends on access to unequally
> distributed resources -- e.g. time, travel money, the appropriate
> language for discourse, "air time", or as folks here seem to be
> suggesting the inherent value/significance of the ideas or  
> expertise of
> individuals.
>
> 	3. the "network" model which is I think the appropriate one here
> as it allows for (and even enables) cooperation/collaboration/ 
> coalition
> building and is in itself neutral as to whether the participating
> elements (nodes) are individuals or institutions or collectivities of
> some other variety...
>
> It seems to me that CS must necessarily operate by means of the
> "network" model as a collectivity of links and nodes sharing some
> minimal set of common positions and working as the need arises towards
> some common goals.
>
> The problem as I see it is that for whatever reason, CS in this  
> instance
> is operating on the basis of the second (market) model where  
> "access to
> influence" i.e. participation in the IGF/designation as THE CS-IGC  
> is a
> direct product of one's access to the above mentioned resources (time,
> travel money, ideas etc.).  In fact IMHO CS should necessarily be
> operating on the basis of the third model since this is the means by
> which a true measure of inclusion and broad based consensus  
> building can
> be achieved, particularly because as everyone apparently agrees, the
> first (representational model) is too expensive and cumbersome to work
> in this context.

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