[governance] Next steps and communication methods

[Danny Butt]

On 28/04/2006, at 8:44 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Just to be practical, can we try to focus back on next steps for  
> the caucus?
> There was ample support for Avri to coordinate the caucus for process
> matters towards the establishment of a new formal structure, with some
> people opposing the idea of a single coordinator and asking we  
> continue
> to have two.

I said before that I think that if Avri's role is to lead us through  
developing a structure then I support having her there and think  
there is little risk involved. This process will also involve  
discussion about what coordination structure is required for the IGC  
going forward. So I think the "one or two coordinators" discussion  
preempts this process. If Avri wants to add Bill or anyone else to  
help I think that's fine - it's not an ongoing structure.

To Avri's comments and questions - can I open this by saying that I  
am not trying to put forward a complete solution. Part of the reason  
poor governance structures continue is because the put the burden of  
coherence is placed on any alternative proposal. I think we would be  
well served by prototyping or testing-out improvements (where there  
is a reasonable level of support) without worrying about how they fit  
into an entire system or trying to forecast every conceivable  
implication. Reservations about new processes should definitely be  
documented, but can be logged as "issues to watch" during a  
prototyping phase (fixed duration?), at the end of which we can look  
at them and see whether they've come to pass or whether other ones  
have. Make our "coding" more iterative.

I've tried to articulate some general principles that I think would  
make the work of the IGC more effective: 1) some issue-based  
specialisation or multivocality; 2) ways to incorporate the work of  
collectives as well as individuals (more on that in another message);  
3) most importantly, some allowance for tension and lack of complete  
consensus. I think these are realistic when I think about the groups  
I work with in "real life", and the diversity of this list. I'm not  
particularly attached to any implementation of these principles, but  
without improvement in these areas the IGC isn't somewhere I can work.

With those out of the way, here are my thoughts on your questions  
Avri. I'm using the term editor but it could be  editor / working  
group chair / coordinator - sort out the terminology later.

> -you mentioned having editors per theme: how does an editor avoid
> becoming a control/gate on where a theme can go?

They don't. They have to accept that responsibility (which will  
involve making some kind of commitment to being more facilitative  
than participatory), and collectively we need to find a way to ensure  
that the people in IGC who are interested in an issue are reasonably  
happy with the people who have that leadership role. Personally, I  
think we could start with having people propose themes they're  
interested in leading a group toward, and people can freely decide or  
not to join in with them -maybe on a sub-list or something. I expect  
most of us who talk a lot will want to join more than one issue  
group. Let those who ride decide. It will be a good way of sorting  
out the very interested from the mildly interested but vocal. If  
there are particular issues where there are contests over leadership,  
then we can have a conversation about it (rotating or shared  
editing?), find a compromise. I also don't think it matters if the  
issues overlap - they do in real life part of the broader IGC group's  
coordination work will be about aligning these. If there are serious  
areas of conflict then that's the kind of work this list can do.

> -and like wise how does a theme reach a conclusion that can move
> beyond those contributing to the theme?

 From what I've seen from this list, there are two types of work that  
happen. Mostly, it's statement development in relation to a  
particular opportunity: "comments required by forum X in official  
consultation process". So the group gets to work, shares their  
statement with the broader list a week or two out, any serious issues  
get talked about. The second type is when opportunities come up at  
particular events - I think here the editor will need to be given  
some latitude to make statements on behalf of their working group. I  
think any finished work comes out to the list for a temperature  
reading (even for a few hours - you never know when someone has some  
critical information) before going into a public forum.
>

> -is there a way to deal with multiple languages effectively?

Not really, but I think we can set up testbeds. There is value in  
having those on the list who speak other languages set up working  
groups or similar under the IGC umbrella. If a list and website is  
provided it costs next-to-nothing and if it turns into a group of 5  
or 1000 conversing in Chinese, Hindi or French then I think we're  
making great progress compared to where we are now.

> -is there a way to work with one when you only have intermittent
> access or expensive access.  one of the advantages of email is the
> least common denominator aspect - especially if people use text
> messages, it is relatively easy to receive and send.  what service
> can be provided for the person who does not have reliable access that
> would allow them to sit for as much time as needed to read and edit a
> wiki page?

I think the editor takes responsibility for their group having  
effective access. If I was chairing a group I'd be happy to take  
responsibility for including the email content from anyone who really  
couldn't access a website. The most critical aspect is the speed of  
page loading - text only. When I've been on an unreliable connection  
I'd copy stuff and edit it in a text editor. I think this is within  
the realms of most people. I just think a lot of people (including  
myself ;) are used to email.

> --- can you perhaps subscribe to a theme on a wiki and get email
> every time there is a change and send email to the wiki in response?

RSS is better for this, but Mediawiki for example can do email
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Enotif

> - how is the community informed of new topics and of status on themes
> if they cannot gain access to a wiki?  or don't want to check it
> daily to see if there is a new topic under discussion.

Again, I think the responsibility of the editors is to keep the  
broader community informed. This is part of the scaling feature. I  
don't want to read every contribution this group would make on  
privacy, but I'd definitely be interested in reading a summary. We  
could do a temporal thing like monthly updates to the list, but as  
mentioned before I think most of the work gets done when there's a  
specific reason to do it, so as above we're sharing work before it  
goes into an official forum. Quite honestly, I don't think this is a  
huge issue. If I can keep track of everything that civil society is  
doing on Internet governance, it's not doing enough work ;) .
>
> As for the mailing list, i do not believe we should give up on it.  I
> think it is a good place for themes to get

I agree - I wasn't suggesting ditching the list or a central forum. I  
just want to see it freed up to work on emerging issues, areas of  
deep conflict, and how the processes are going. That's enough for one  
list!

And that's enough for one message.

Danny

-- 
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