[governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressiveelements of IGF functions ommitted

Wed Feb 15 21:18:01 EST 2006

Danny,

This strikes me as a well thought-out critique as well as an eloquent
synthesis of the big issues that have been raised in regards to the IG
caucus over the last few months and must be continue to be  raised in
regards to the notion of civil society participation in governance writ
large. 

As such, I neither think that it is appropriate to respond to it
defensively, nor to brush it aside. What you have written here is
fundamental. I don't have any answers to the points you have raised
either. I also have no doubt that everyone appreciates your offer to
make a wiki for drafting to perhaps contribute to helping to solve the
some of the  problems you are underlining.

Is this statement on the IGF based on a formal agreed upon set of
internal processes? No. Is it entirely representative and democratic?
No. I don't think that means that it is not based on a some sort of
"collective process of thinking" though.

First of all, there is a big difference between trying to rubber stamp
one's own agenda with the caucus seal of approval and making a good
faith attempt to synthesize the opinions of its members.

I am not saying the later could not and does not happen in this caucus,
but, in the parts of this document that I worked on, I carefully
reviewed the discussion on the listserve to synthesize the various
opinions that had been voiced about the location issue and drew directly
on other sources such as the APC text on capacity building written by
Adam, David Souter and Karen for some of the other sections.

Jeanette can speak for herself but, she did say she was working for a
list her and Adam had been keeping about comments made by others and not
on her own ideas. 

Secondly, informal, unrepresentative, totally ad-hoc and questionably
legitimate though it may be, the process of collective thinking is going
on right now- anyone can express their displeasure or support for the
words that were on the first version of the paper. Parminder and others
did. Yes the first draft might set the agenda for discussion, but there
is a discussion.

It could be much, much better, but it is nonetheless "collective
thinking". What it isn't is accountable to a formal and accepted process
and, I agree with you that we need to pick back up the discussion of
how to make it more so.

The ultimate problem becomes that someone has to do the first draft of
this in order to 'make do', and that we haven't agreed on who that
person is, why they are that person and how they get to that point.

So, it is surely a cop-out to say that 'we have to make do'- we
shouldn't accept that as a rationale, but at the same time until we
figure out how to organize our process better there is a burden on
someone to take the initiative. 

The "perception from some that this suits a particular group with a
shared history and a  relatively shared culture and assumptions" is
unfortunate, and clearly frustrating for everyone. 

But, I think one thing that we can all agree on in regards to this
question is that-  if there is a clique at the middle of this caucus-
despite being a Western academic like some of the other people in the
caucus, I for one have certainly not been invited to join it and
Jeanette was more than happy to delegate some of the drafting to me.

In truth, Adam and Jeanette's eagerness to get out of the position where
they are the ones who are forced to start the 'making do' process should
indicate to us that this perception is somewhat separate from the issues
in our processes of collective thinking. 

I do think we need to recognize that there are very different interests,
backgrounds, constituencies and perspectives at work in this caucus. 

So, I for one second Danny's appeal to pick back up the caucus process
discussion that was started in Tunis and would very much like to see
those different perspectives involved and engaged in that process. 

-JS

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=
Jeremy Shtern,

candidat doctoral et chercheur au Laboratoire de Recherche sur les
Politiques de Communication/
Ph.D candidate & researcher at the Communications Policy Research
Laboratory 

Université de Montréal            
département de communication

514-343-6111 ex./poste  5419               
jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt
Sent: February 15, 2006 4:19 PM
To: Governance Caucus
Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] intervention draft - why are the
more progressiveelements of IGF functions ommitted

I support the essence of Parminder's comments - with respect for the  
work people are doing I think it's not true that it "reflects a  
collective process of thinking" in a meaningful way, because there  
are very different levels of involvement and investment in the process.

This is the "governance of CS caucus" issue that we discussed last  
year (and reached no agreement on from memory). Until there is  
progress on this the status quo will remain, and the perception from  
some that this suits a particular group with a shared history and a  
relatively shared culture and assumptions will also remain.

The decision to move forward on more drafting, consensus-building,  
and interventions without having addressed the process issues is a  
clear message: the concerns raised by Guru, Laina, and others last  
year are secondary to this group's activity.

The downplaying of our governance unfortunately echoes the failure of  
some of our other internet governance institutions ("we're doing the  
best we can", "we are open to any contributions"), and over the long  
term leaves the group vulnerable to some of the critiques we are  
making of others. The proverb about keeping one's own house in order  
applies. As mentioned last year I am happy to participate  
constructively in activities and discussions designed to address the  
issue, as I know many others would be. I'm getting tired of questions  
along this line being painted as counter-productive to more urgent  
"matters at hand", perhaps this discussion can be continued post-Geneva.

Regards

Danny

On 16/02/2006, at 5:54 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>
> The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective
> process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged
> elements of recent contributions.
>
> Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply  
> not
> true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to
> give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.
>
> I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this
> list in more polite and respectful way.
>
> jeanette
>
> Parminder wrote:
>>
>>

-- 
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