[governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus

[William Drake]

Hi J,

I was confused about W's position, not about your proposal.  I hadn't
suggested either that the list would have to change if the caucus became
more structured, so we actually are on the same page regarding vision.  If
you and Izumi are more optimistic than I am at present about the actualy
viability, that's good---something to build on.

Cheers,

BD


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 3:12 PM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: Wolfgang Kleinwächter; governance at lists.cpsr.org;
> marzouki at ras.eu.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus
>
>
>
>
> William Drake wrote:
> > Hi Wolfgang,
> >
> > I'm a little confused.  What Jeanette is proposing is essentially what I
> > previously described as a Status Quo Plus model---opt-in and
> identifiable
> > membership, endorse a charter, have clear decision making
> rules, enhanced
> > facilitator/chair roles, etc---
>
> Dear Bill, don't be confused :-)
> Yes, there are lots of similarities between our proposals (and I
> intended to say that but then forgot to do so). The only difference I
> see is that I put more emphasis on the hybrid character of the new
> structure. The most visible and perhaps relevant function of the caucus
> so far, the open space for debate, remains as it is right now. The new
> chartered space concerns only those who wish to vote and regard
> themselves as members.
>
> You are right, we would need to form a core team to set this up. And we
> should wait for more comments /support for such a model.
> I am pleased with the positive comments so far, thank you!
> jeanette
>
> which you and others replied was probably too
> > ambitious, so let's stick with the Status Quo approach.  Now
> you're saying
> > let's do it.  I agree that this would be the most desirable way
> forward, I'm
> > just skeptical that enough of us would commit the volunteer
> time and effort
> > to really make it viable.  Even then, it could quickly run into
> the problem
> > of disparate visions, procedural and substantive.  To determine
> whether this
> > has chance of flying, at a minimum we'd need a committed core
> team to work
> > up proposals, including a charter, and a live web space, preferably with
> > wiki (hi Meryem;-) to shape texts.  Working on a list alone has
> proven time
> > and again to be problematic, with threads getting lost before ideas are
> > fully vetted etc. and inadequate cumulation.
> >
> > It would be useful to hear from more people whether there's
> real demand to
> > try this, and whether they'd be willing to be part of said team.  I'd
> > certainly join something with critical mass and mo, but another
> process that
> > eats time and drifts inconclusively is not enticing.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> >> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> >> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:27 PM
> >> To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake
> >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org
> >> Subject: AW: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear JEANETTE;
> >>
> >> no you haven´t be too long.
> >>
> >> I fully support the various elements of your proposal. Let´s go
> >> down this road - follow the IEZF example and develop new
> >> innovative forms on the move.
> >>
> >> First thing: Somebody shouls start to draft a charter.
> >>
> >> best
> >>
> >> w
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
> >> Gesendet: Do 09.03.2006 20:02
> >> An: William Drake
> >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org
> >> Betreff: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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