[governance] individuals

[David Allen]

Since Saturday evening, I have been off the grid (rural Virginia, in the US).  Upon returning it is clear I was quite mistaken that a partner, in guidance of the caucus through reorganization, would be either welcome or forthcoming.

What matters (or at least motivates me) is for the caucus to emerge successfully, outfitted to be the partner that is expected, for IGF and beyond.

In that regard.  If the situation is gauged, not from the viewpoint of those presently participating, but from that of the governments with which the caucus would partner - Michael Gurstein has pointed the way IMO.

At 10:06 PM -0400 4/25/06, Gurstein, Michael wrote:
>... So, if ... the IGC would like to remain known as the IGC rather than simply Bill, Wolfgang, Vittorio, Avri, Janette, Milton and friends then there are certain [steps]... a broad strategy of inclusion ...

If the caucus emerges as 'thirty or forty people' (Milton says sixty), any brand developed so far will be hard to sustain.  Governments of course monitor this list, so they can see.  Even among the thirty or forty/sixty, the participants are most lopsidedly from the West.  Asia and the rest of the world are not only at least half the rest of the world's population, power centers are shifting in that direction.

But bottom line:  In a world of billions, a caucus that reflects the views of a tiny  handful of individuals - when governments from all over the world will look for their citizens from their civil societies - will not sustain to be a legitimate partner for governments, I am afraid.  This of course was Danny Butt's point, originally.

Vittorio has, just now, suggested a way to continue with the 'old' model.  AFAICS governments simply will not accord that legitimacy, for purposes of partnering in IGF.

Lee McKnight raised the IETF as one possible model; I have been tempted there too, as said elsewhere.  Lee also goes on, to scalability - a clear necessity, if the caucus is to be home to a larger group.  My view is that the historical impossibility to contain net governance within the IETF is what has led to the present impasse, a la ICANN et al.  (Your view may be different ...)  That is - we have yet to find scalability for governance.  So, we may have to look beyond the IETF model, also.

Milton asks (paraphrased) the practical question, 'so how do we do the work, to bring in a much wider constituency?'  It would seem the beginning of that answer lies in designing a caucus model that indeed will scale, and so be potentially attractive.

Michael Gurstein has proposed a network model.  Though Avri and Carlos have offered elegant support, I for one do not see any specifics as to what is such a model.  What is the structure?  Who does what to whom, when?  How are practical matters dealt?  How does it truly scale and garner legitimacy - certainly, the caucus is not there now ...  And so forth.  Quite a bit of 'so forth,' to get to sustainable, practicable structure and practice - particularly one that will invite participation by those many who are now absent and the acknowledgement by governments that this is 'legitimate.'

Carlos Alfonso has, to my eye, offered the clearest, most particular and most helpful picture, as to how such organizations operate.  So much so, that it is reproduced below.

David

At 5:11 PM -0300 4/25/06, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>Fascinating question for us in Brazil, where there are more than half a million non-profit civil society organizations formally registered. :) This includes political parties, religious organizations, business associations (yes, these are non-profit too, although their mission is to help their companies make profits), soccer clubs, academic associations, more than 50,000 "social development" organizations (those which act in lobbying, advocacy, and carry out activities in environment, education, health, housing, economic leveraging and so on), many associations of organizations, thousands of associations of individuals etc etc etc. Tremendous diversity indeed.
>
>One thing for certain: they do represent people (or ensembles of organizations), be them their own members, or the constituencies they work with and who have legitimized them as such. They represent and have the right to do so by that legitimacy, and are recognized as such by the other instances of organization -- this is how organized civil society participates in governance, in public policy monitoring, in cauci and fora, and so on. This representation takes several forms -- including delegation for particular issues. For example, an association of NGOs might delegate to one of its members representation on a certain specialized issue on which this organization is a recognized expert, and this is quite common.
>
>We are talking about representation, not "significance" (whatever this means in this context...).
>
>If claims to representation of consituencies may at times be fake or precarious, this does not rule out the legitimacy of civil society representation in general. The quality of this representation (measured by effectiveness in the debates and influencing in decision making, by reporting back timely to their constituencies with transparency etc etc) might vary a lot, but it is still representation.
>
>rgds
>
>--c.a.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance