[governance] VS: Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3options]
Danny Butt
db at dannybutt.net
Sun Mar 5 17:19:19 EST 2006
Thanks also Bill for some useful distinctions. I agree with much of
the analysis and also support the status quo at an organisational level.
The range of positions under civil society makes it very difficult to
support effective organisational coherence without a lot of resources
put into finding common ground (meetings and the like). What was that
research released the other week - 50% of all email has its tone
misinterpreted? That seems to operate a lot on most lists and the
diversity of inputs only exacerbates it here. I think a more formal
organisation risks becoming a quasi-open resource sink in an ICANNish
way - not enough resources to do a great job, enough that it needs
to make decisions to maintain itself that might conflict with some of
its supporters.
That's not to say that we have to keep the status quo at a process
level. I mentioned before some infrastructural support. I do think a
wiki-like environment for drafting could be a big help (in being able
to encompass a range of positions). Also, having a place where
previous statements can be easily accessed and compared would be
useful. My main frustration on the list is not with differences of
opinion, but with the feeling that we are sometimes trying to resolve
substantial differences in our whole orientation to Internet
Governance under intense time pressure, and not always making the
most of previous work. If we can collectively build a base of
understanding or language outside of specific deadlines I think it
will be easier for us to draw on that to make specific, consistent
(if not representative) statements.
Regards
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
On 04/03/2006, at 9:18 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
> Thanks Bill for bringing some systematic ideas to the discussion
> table.
>
> I would prefere the status quo. It is leightweight, flexible and
> gives enoug opportunities to speak with a united voice - where
> needed - by keeping individual position visible.
>
> Status quo plus brings a lot of extra burocratical work and I do
> not see any caucus member who is willing to shoulder this.
>
> Status quo minus means to give away what we have achieved so far
> and this is a lot if you compare the situation 2006 with the
> situation we had in 2002 when the caucus was formed. The caucus
> voice is heard and other stakeholders have recognized that this is
> the platform where a bunch of peolle, who are identified as the
> spokespersons for positions which reflect civil society´s interests.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Lähettäjä: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org puolesta: William Drake
> Lähetetty: pe 3.3.2006 17:25
> Vastaanottaja: Meryem Marzouki; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Aihe: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance
> caucus [3options]
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list