[governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options]

[William Drake]

Hi Meryem,

Thanks for restarting this discussion, although I was hoping we could stick
with your prior dialectical thread long enough to find out what Marx and
Hegel would have to say about IG...

A few responses to the options you pose.  Personally, I can't see the
caucus/mailing list becoming the plenary or plenary-like space for the whole
CS coalition that formed around WSIS, much less for a more ambitious
configuration that would draw in other CS actors that haven't been involved
to date (which would be important, going forward).  While we've moved toward
a broad understanding of IG that touches on many issue-areas, much of the
'global information society' type agenda and the WSIS follow-up and
implementation action lines are outside the realm of IG, and it would make
no sense to try to cram everything from community networking to FLOSS and
beyond into the IG framework.  The people and organizations involved would
quickly become very frustrated.  So I agree, a broader restructuring and
reinvigoration is in order (but probably unlikely), the IGC would remain one
component of that coalition, and of course individual organizations or
caucuses not involved here would not need to work through the IGC to
participate in the IGF if their issues are on the agenda, or should be.

As to the IGC itself, it would seem there are three options:

1.  Status Quo Plus.  Try to strengthen the group and position it to
actually be able to agree on common positions, as we used to do, and
represent them in IGF and beyond.  Prior efforts to start conversations
about this went nowhere.  One could imagine pursuing steps like a)
determining who actually considers themselves to be in the caucus---which
inter alia would make it easier to tell when there's consensus on a
proposal---by having people formally opt in, similar to what you did in the
Human Rights Caucus www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/ ; b) having some
sort of shared charter or mission statement (Adam once suggested we get this
by simply extracting guiding principles from previously agreed texts); c)
setting clear decision making rules; d) electing new coordinators; e) maybe
seeking financial support from a foundation; etc etc.  I strongly suspect
that we are no longer in a place where any of this would be viable.  The
diversity of views on substantive issues, particularly with respect to core
resources, is simply too great; as WSIS went on, only the procedural
questions like demanding CS inclusion proved easy to agree on promptly and
without controversy.  Perhaps the only way we could reduce that diversity
would be to form a fairly small group that agrees to a rather specific
charter, which others would presumably find exclusionary and odious.  By
extension, I think Veni's suggestion that the caucus could become a legal
entity is a total non-starter.  An undefined range of people who don't
actually agree on much and are working as volunteers is hardly the
foundation for a viable formal organization.

2.  Status Quo.  At present, the caucus is more like a loose network of
people with common interests (as opposed to positions), an umbrella label we
can use for purposes of identification when interfacing with governments
etc.  No defined leadership, agreed procedures, membership, etc, just CS
participants in a 300-person, multistakeholder e-discussion space.  When
individual or organizational participants want to develop and represent a
common position in IGF or elsewhere, it's done on an opt-in basis, and the
result is not presented as a caucus position per se.  For example, that's
what I did last month re: the ITU reform meeting, a text was rushed
together, two dozen people signed in a day, and I submitted it to ITU under
the rubric 'members of the IGC,' rather than 'the IGC' (even though there
were more signatories than we typically had expressing support back when the
caucus did adopt joint positions).  This avoids non-signatories feeling
their views have been misrepresented etc.  Similarly, individual or
organizational participants make interventions in IGF etc. without
purporting to represent the IGC.  That's what we did at the IGF
consultation, except once when those attending managed to have a meeting and
agree on some points, which Adam presented as representing the consensus of
caucus members who happened to be in attendance.  This has basically worked
ok, and governments probably don't recognize the devolution from what we
were doing before.  However, it doesn't provide any formally principled
basis to do what Milton mentioned as a key function, namely nominating
people for the IGF PC or whatever.  And of course, if different groupings
working under the rubric promote incompatible positions in a meeting with
governments, it might cause a little confusion.

3.  Status Quo Minus.  We could declare the caucus to have been dissolved,
now that WSIS is over.  Smaller groupings, presumably of the like minded on
particular issues, could be formed to address particular issues or represent
particular political tendencies, and the list would continue to function as
it does now.  Since we can form coalitions of the willing under option 2,
it's not clear what the advantage of this would be, other than avoiding any
confusion on the part of governments etc. as to whether what someone is
saying is 'the caucus position.'  Maybe I'm missing something...

All things considered, the status quo has some clear deficiencies and is a
bit disappointing, but it seems viable for most purposes, no?

Best,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:01 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus
>
>
> [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
>


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