[governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus

[Meryem Marzouki]

[Thought it's time to change the subject of this - promising... -  
thread]

Le 2 mars 06 à 19:22, Milton Mueller a écrit :

> I see two roles for the Caucus going forward:
>
> 1. To serve as an "official" nominator of CS representatives to IGF  
> structures
> 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in  
> IGF processes.

This doesn't take into account a major change in post-wsis situation:  
governance was one among the many WSIS identified issues before  
Tunis, and CS was dealing with this issue almost only in the  
framework of this caucus, which was fine. Now IGF is all about  
internet governance and almost the only body where 'things can be  
done' for CS, starting with framing a - more or less agreed -  
understanding of 'internet governance'. This means that we'll face  
the following alternative: either this caucus/mailing list becomes  
the plenary or plenary-like space, or the whole CS @ WSIS should  
reconsider its structuring, starting from caucuses.

I would favor the latter solution and, although this has not started  
yet, as the human rights caucus co-chairs, I think Rikke and I should  
propose to the HR caucus to discuss this issue: whether we should  
stay as a caucus and try to have a say in the IGF process, what  
should be our understanding of internet governance and the role of  
IGF, etc. In other words, should the HR caucus develop more detailed  
inputs on internet governance that what it did till now, i.e. stating  
in a very general way that Internet governance should respect HR  
standards. May I remind here that HR also include economic, social  
and cultural rights, and the right to development, not only civil and  
political rights..., and this has a lot to do with governance, in  
this context with internet governance.

Obviously, this process could be undertaken by all caucuses. However,  
the governance caucus is naturally facing a particular situation:  
should it stay more or less as it is and play the two roles that you  
see and describe here (while there is no reason that it serves as an  
"official" nominator for the whole CS: I do understand what you mean,  
but this would certainly be opposed by many CS people outside of this  
caucus, I'm afraid), or should it consider that it has attracted a  
huge number of people on this mailing list, from different  
backgrounds, with different understandings of 'internet governance',  
pushing various agendas, etc., and that it may be time to try  
restructuring in coalitions (or caucuses if we want to keep this  
terminology), either following different understandings of 'internet  
governance', or by specific issues, or whatever criteria people and  
organizations usually follow to coalesce.

This, I think, should be the most important discussion within CS, in  
this caucus and elsewhere, and unfortunately I don't see it happening.

What do you people think ?

Meryem



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