[governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF

[Vittorio Bertola]

Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
> Hi,
> at this state of things I would argue very much against any formal 
> decision making authority for the MAG. We are still in a state of 
> experimenting with multi-stakeholder processes. For many governments it 
> is not easy to deal with a membership so heterogeneous in terms of 
> authority and legitimacy. Even to acknowledge each other can be a 
> challenge. Processes such as WGIG or the MAG need a protected space in 
> order to evolve. No decision-making power is one element of this 
> protection.
> 
> Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any 
> decision-making authority for civil society in binding international 
> policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that 
> specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we 
> simply lack legitimacy to do so.

I agree with you on this. But I also agree with you on the previous 
point - even civil society needs a "protected space" in which it can 
evolve credible procedures for internal decision-making, and especially 
picking representatives. Such representatives should initially not have 
any real role, but then, if the system works, they could have a bit more 
  of it - for example, be members of an AG which has a certain (limited) 
steering role for the IGF process.

In general, and also as a caucus co-coordinator, I see a pattern of, er, 
"dialogue" between AG members (representatives) and caucus membership 
(constituents) that I've seen in other places, e.g. the At Large, both 
from the membership and from the representative side. The membership 
feels frustrated because the representatives aren't sharing each and 
every detail of what they see, and will in some cases (for example 
because there is no time to consult) act on their own. The 
representatives feel frustrated because they usually post early calls 
for input that go ignored, and then, at or after the deadline, members 
complain that they didn't have opportunities to provide input. Reality 
is that this relationship is complex, and is made more complex by the 
fact that we're all very busy, very passionate, very bright, and very 
egocentric. So I would suggest that rather than having exchanges (e.g. 
see the one between Adam and Parminder) on who is the fault if this 
channel of communication isn't always effective, we focus to use it 
whenever there is momentum to do so.

However, in the specific case of the IGC, I see it harder and harder to 
think that we can have common positions on substance. Perhaps our future 
role should just be that of substance-neutral and all-welcoming venue 
for (s)electing civil society members of the AG - then let them follow 
their views, and confirm/sack them according to their performance and to 
how much we collectively agree with what they say. It might be easier 
and more effective than trying to agree on complex collective 
statements, especially on issues where we know we differ a lot, every 
two months.
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance