[governance] individuals (and next steps)

[Gurstein, Michael]

I think it is important that we get our terminology (and thus to a degree our mental models) clarified and articulated.

I do not think, for reasons I've already outlined that the IGC is a "network" (and certainly not an "open network") except in the crudest possible form i.e. it is based (in part) on a many to many email list.

Rather it is currently (and I think that these are mutually exclusive) an electronic "market space" where various folks as policy entrepreneurs have used access to resources (language, personal contacts, access to travel funds) to ensure the success of their "product" in this space to the exclusion of their competitors. 

MG
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki
Sent: April 28, 2006 12:36 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] individuals (and next steps)



Le 28 avr. 06 à 10:41, Vittorio Bertola a écrit :

> Meryem Marzouki ha scritto:
>> Despite its numerous references, it hasn't been shown yet that the 
>> issue/policy entrepreneurship is a model of CS collective 
>> organization (which is the one discussed here re: IGC organizational 
>> form), rather than a concept identifying very small, niche market 
>> oriented, particular kind of businesses.
>
> Well, if you go this way, then NGOs are policy businesses all the
> same,
> right? Simply they don't pay dividends, they pay salaries and
> reimbursements, but the principle is potentially the same: if someone
> wants to make a living out of policy activities, the form of
> incorporation is a secondary issue.

No. What you describe is a drift of NGOs, highly encouraged when they  
are professionalized (which doesn't mean at all that all NGO which  
have staff are drifting this way).
What was discussed, I think, is the NGO model as opposed to the  
network model for activism. It's obvious that the IGC (and CS at WSIS as  
a whole) is in network form.

The main (recurrent) question, which the IGC asks for itself from the  
beginning (like many other, some more mature, networks like e.g. the  
social forums), that we discussed some weeks ago in early March with  
the IGC status quo/status quo plus/etc. questions (in summary, the  
role of the IGC), and that is now again on the table with Avri  
proposal to act as chair for a transitional period (which is most  
welcome) is simple to understand, though very difficult to resolve in  
practice: should this network remains "simply" a common space or  
should it become a "movement" able to make emerging collective actions?

As for now, what we have observed on the ground for IGC is that it is  
indeed a common "space" (which is in itself an important and precious  
achievement) but it has failed till now to become a "movement", if  
only for producing common substantive positions, like the recent days  
have shown.

My opinion is that, before asking ourselves if this profund change of  
nature is feasible and how, we should better ask ourselves if it is  
desirable: is really this what we want?

My answer would be, as I've proposed in the early March discussions  
on this list, that:
(1) IGC should remain a common space (and should really work on  
outreach to, as a start, the whole CS @WSIS). i.e. be the "CS  
plenary" for governance issues (IGF and maybe others).
AND
(2) Already existing or yet o be formed coalitions (call it caucus,  
NGO, group of NGOs, group of individuals, whatever), including non  
permanent one, should be the "movements", i.e. develop substantive  
contributions, undertake collective actions, etc.
There is a full range of such kinds of coalitions that should be  
accomodated by the IGC as a "plenary" space: the simplest, very basic  
form of such a coalition could be a list of signatories (be they  
individuals or big NGOs) of a given statement. Elaborated forms could  
be similar to caucus like the HRC. The most elaborated form could be  
the big NGO. And yes, the individual (issue entrepreneur or not) also  
has his place here.

Here I think Avri's role would be prominent, as:
- facilitator/chair of this discussion, where this proposal above is  
only one of the many people may express here,
- provider of syntheses of these discussions
- facilitator of (hopefully) reaching a decision
- proposer/facilitator of adequate processes (that would be  
eventually written down in a common charter) to allow us collectively  
dealing with practical matters, how we accomodate different  
structures/coalitions, different positions, etc.

I'm sure we should learn from social forums experience here in terms  
of processes.

Quite a task!

Best,
Meryem


_______________________________________________
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