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

[David Allen]

On its face, the IGC would seem to have little choice but to move 
beyond a discussion space.  As a core of its 'offer' for IGF, IGC 
invites governments to join and adopt its practices for online 
deliberation.  Unless IGC can conduct its own online affairs in 
exemplary fashion, it is unclear why governments would give such an 
invitation serious consideration.  Important IGC aims for IGF are at 
stake.

But there seemed a clear reason why Bill tended toward a discussion 
space, rather than anything more:  To go farther is a major 
challenge, across sharp divides in the group, which so far have not 
been surmounted.  By far the largest number of the original responses 
to Bill's - and from a reasonably wide spectrum - echoed his choice 
for just a discussion space.  In some cases the reasons seemed to 
confirm Bill's, for instance weariness at numerous earlier attempts.

Bottom line - no wave of a magic wand seems likely to move IGC beyond 
a discussion space.  (In fact, to acknowledge creation of a 
discussion space could actually be taken as a milestone - Vittorio 
might point us to the 
<http://www.fineliving.com/fine/adventure/article/0,1663,FINE_1403_2841848,00.html>passeggiata 
as a sort of rough analog.)  One experience so far has shown that 
trappings such as a charter and voting may appear to move beyond past 
differences - but apparently it takes more, a good bit more.

What is 'exemplary conduct of online affairs'?  Really - that is the 
whole question.

Though perhaps a radical notion in a discussion here, group outcomes 
turn, IMO, first of all, on the human dynamics among those involved. 
The radical part of the notion:  this means online tools are only 
subsidiary and in support, rather than the starting place.

What does that buy us?  Among others, we design the use of the online 
tools to suit our group needs, not the other way around.  Most 
especially, we focus on our group needs, as any start point for 
thinking (not on online tools).

For a (slightly circuitous) example, consider the IETF as a model, as 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf>Avri 
points us.  (My <http://davidallen.org/pages/paprindx.html>papers 
have long used the IETF as a canonical case, so of course personally 
I am in full support.)  Here are two points to start - there is a 
longer list ...

i.  Strong tie between larger discussion space and smaller guiding group.

A person in the IETF, to use the example, has a stake in both the 
larger discussion group and in outcomes from the smaller guiding 
group.  (This arises from roles both in innovation and in the 
standardization phases - see the appendix 
<http://intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF_Framework-A4.pdf>here for a 
really brief description.)

Another way to put this:  There is some level of trust (not just 
votes ...) between the levels.  Even another way to put it:  At 
certain times there are effectively hierarchical relations between 
levels (despite rhetoric to the contrary).  While she may or may not 
agree with these characterizations, 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf>Avri's is 
surely a necessary starting point, to understand.

Of course the best online tools are what support such a dynamic 
story-going-forward.

But:

ii.  A key difference between the classic IETF model and IGC is the 
relative homogeneity in outlook among the engineers who first created 
the IETF.  The relative similarity meant the dynamics just above 
could operate in a more-or-less seamless fashion.  By comparison CS 
and the IGC welcome the full range of styles and views.

The recent line of thought, started by Bret, has tried to plumb the 
question.  The sociologist would speak in terms of differentiation 
and integration - how to break apart into natural units while still 
arranging for some connection among the pieces?

This does make the dynamics above more challenging to pull off.  To 
put it in practical terms, we could notice that groups often perform 
better when there is some task in hand.  With very different 
viewpoints among subparts of IGC, a common task is harder to find.

But it is the common bond that pulls the pieces together.  These of 
course are transformations that take time, commitment, vision, 
leadership and the right moment (for which, in my book, read:  a 
ready community).  The good online tools support it.

The time, commitment, vision, leadership and the right moment 
probably bear re-emphasis.


Of course, we could now spin out the challenge to keep the strong tie 
in i), when there are large differences in ii).  But that is next 
points.

Some of this is heretical to at least some readers.  Overall, are we 
on the right track?  By formal decree IGF also is no more than a talk 
shop, a discussion space.  (As Milton pointed out, nor should we sell 
short the importance of talk.)  Apparently the smart thinking about 
the IGF 'designated discussion space'? - that it also be the 
two-level design now in the wind for IGC.  [Yes, there is a silly 
paradox in this ... to get a discussion space, we need more than that 
...]

After Jeanette fairly faithfully turned Bill's spec into a proposal, 
he at least looks to something to build on.  Would that it were so.

David


At 5:25 PM +0100 3/3/06, William Drake wrote:
>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

At 8:02 PM +0100 3/9/06, 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060314/f60cbcf9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance