[governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus

[Izumi AIZU]

Dear Jeanette and all,

I have been on the road for almost one month, Europe, Singapore and now in US
and therefore have hard time reading the messages, if not thinking about.

Anyway, I read your LONG message, it is rich and good. And I fully
agree with your analysis and support the proposed direction.

I read Bill's skepticism, or caution, but I am more optimistic than you 
are, perhaps.
I have to pack and check-out in next 10 min, otherwise Adam will be mad ;-)

izumi

At 20:02 06/03/09 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>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


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