[governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting debate. I 
hope I can push it a bit further.

As I said before, I think it would be a real mistake to give up on the 
IG caucus as civil society actor. Most government and private sector 
people in the WSIS context know of our existence. We form one of several 
interfaces to civil society in the broader sense and have thus become 
some sort of a platform and brand name. The very fact that people from 
ITU, ISOC or ICANN have subscribed and listen indicates the relevance of 
this space.

As most of us know, it is not easy to establish such a status. New, more 
specific cs groups would have a hard time to reach the reputation we 
have right now. And there is another point I want to make: I really 
believe that it is our duty to work on structures and procedures that 
allow us to form common positions and develop such positions over 
several years. If we want civil society to be taken seriously, and if it
is our goal to change dominant policy preferences, we have to establish 
ourselves as a reliable long-term organization.

So, please, lets think of a caucus reform rather than reverting to a 
mere discussion space.

To me, this list has and should also in future have two functions. 
First, it is indeed a space for discussing IG related issues across 
organizational and sectoral boundaries. Second, the caucus is a working 
group for civil society folks to form opinions on those issues, to 
prepare interventions. A potentially third role would be to select 
people for specific committees, working groups or whatever.

In the first and second year of its existence, the caucus could fulfill 
those two roles on the basis of a rather lose structure. (Just to remind 
you, Adam and I insisted on being only coordinators. We didn't want any 
formal authority and therefore refused to become "chairs".)

In the third year, I observed a growing tension between the two 
functions of the caucus as a discussion space and as an 
intervention-oriented working group. What was good for the caucus as an 
open discussion space, became an obstacle for the caucus as a working 
group.

If we want to keep both functions, the working group part needs a better 
  structure. My proposal would be to create an opt-in structure for 
those who regard themselves as active members of the caucus (as opposed 
to listen to its discussions) and want a voting right.

An option would be to combine a voting membership with signing a 
charter. A charter could bind members to certain tasks and/or positions. 
Bill mentions Adam's suggestion to extract parts of former caucus 
statements as the basis for such a charter. This sound like a useful 
procedure provided people want a charter that defines limits of 
acceptable positions.

The new chairs of such a voting membership should have more authority 
than the former coordinators. As things are right now, one veto can be 
enough to kill a draft statement, no matter how many people support it. 
In order to welcome and support diversity among the caucus membership 
but also attain again the ability to agree on positions and makes 
decisions, we need to develop some form of majority ruling.

Personally I wouldn't want to vote on every substantial decision. I 
prefer the concept of rough consensus because it emphasizes the need for 
debate and convincing others.

If you havn't done so, please read Avri's account of IETF's decision 
making rules:
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf

The important message of the IETF paper is that all notions of rough 
consensus need somebody to determine rough consensus. This somebody, the 
chair, is accountable to the group. He/she can be recalled if a majority 
doesn't trust the chair anymore.

In short, I propose to create a smaller entity amidst the caucus as it 
is. The place for discussion would still be the IG list. The only 
difference is that members of the smaller unit would elect the chair and
agree on statements.

The future chairs should be elected and given some authority to call 
consensus on positions or papers.

Perhaps, if the rules and the role of the chairs are clearer, we are 
able to find candidates for this position. In the last half year or so, 
being coordinator was a pretty thankless job. I know from private 
discussions that this is one of the reasons why nobody wanted to take over.

Sorry for being so long, jeanette






>>
>> I wonder whether a "Status Quo Plus Minus" is possible: in which we
>> give the caucus a capacity to elect/select chairs, and delegate decision
>> making responsibility to them, but do not develop a common set of
>> positions on
>> policy issues but simply attempt to be a vehicle for the
>> representations of CS
>> in IGF-related activities. E.g., we elect chairs who develop democratic
>> procedures  to nominate people to serve on IGF-related program committees,
>> councils, etc.
> 
> Understand your concern about the need for procedures to handle nominations
> for IGF etc, and noted that this is a problem with the SQ.  A procedural
> rather than substantive focus could be viable.  But for your solution to
> work we'd need to address a number of challenges, e.g.: 1) Nobody appears to
> want to want to chair; Jeanette's prior call for nominations met a stony
> silence.  And preferably we'd have multiple candidates, and competitive
> choice, or else we're in politburo mode. They'd have to be dedicated
> procedural mavens to achieve what you ask, too (maybe they could work with
> the MMWG on that).   2)  Even if some folks were to step forward now, it's a
> hard to have a really proper election without an identifiable electorate.
> In the absence of any affirmative opting-in, who knows how many of the 300
> people on the list consider themselves to be CS and members of the caucus?
> I suppose we could continue with the 'whoever bothers to speak by a certain
> time' model, but it's a bit lame and open to controversy.  3) How would we
> conduct it?  Use a private voting site, per MMWG, or try the list?  Who'd
> count, decide on voter eligibility based on what criteria, etc?
> 
> Suggestions?
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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