[governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes

[Parminder]

Bill

> Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and 
> inconclusive debate about what what we are willing to call the TC

I must add some observations about what you call as the 'divisive and
inconclusive debate'. There seems to be some impression that I should have
avoided raising and pushing some issues that caused this.

First of all I quote what my proposed statement text said. 

"On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to
appreciate that the above three way division is as per political
representation based on interests of, or representation of different
interests through, these three sectors. Technical community’s presence on
the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and
therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from the language of
relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as undermining the
importance of the technical community. The expertise provided by this
community should be appropriately divided between all the three sectors, and
the expertise criteria should be given due importance at the time of final
selection."


This is a mere elaboration of a point we made in caucus statements in Feb 07
and in May 07. To quote " We note that the proportionate representation of
stakeholder groups and the cross-cutting technical and academic communities,
was not openly and transparently discussed prior to its appointment".

Here we already accept the cross-cutting nature of representation of tech
communities. So what is that I did wrong is not clear to me. 

At a time when MAG's structure and renewal was specifically being discussed
would it not be natural to state out view a little more clearly so that some
one takes notice of it. And also put some force of justifications behind it.


And when MAG itself is discussing the issue about the nature of the tech
community, and its representation, do you think we can avoid taking this
issue up when the CS is the stakeholder group which is most implicated in
the way tech community's representation gets defined. 

In the Feb and May O7 statements we also called for " rules and the quotas
for representation from each stakeholder group" to be "openly established",
and, as quote earlier, the " the proportionate representation of stakeholder
groups and the cross-cutting technical and academic communities" should be
" openly and transparently discussed". It is quite hypocritical to ask MAG
to do these discussions openly and transparently and establish clear rules
and quotas when the CS itself is not willing to enter into this discussion.

Which is the reason why I made the above point, which in my view, was very
fine to make since it came from earlier statements. McTim took issues with
it - though still process related ones, that it can reduce the CS
representation, which did not look very convincing argument, but fine. To
this Ian replied that the org's that get representation under tech community
umbreall are better given representation under a clear separate category
created for them.

At this stage, I have got a series of responses positively inclined towards
this formulation. Only Adam and you seem to have some problems, but as
stated, on political/ process issues. McTim was the only person who moved
towards hardening of his position against this. That would be just one
person, and about Adam and your view, while you are entitled to put it the
way you want to, it often helps at these times to clearly state your view on
the issue under consideration, rather than just giving process views about
how this will be divisive etc. sometime it can confuse more than clarify -
because if one clearly knew which side one was - one can count people
supporting and people against. If I knew these positions, and it were not
against the original text/proposed additional formulations, that it would
only be McTim against it. And rough consensus could actually hold. The
positive views were considerable, and we normally do not get much higher
number for most of out positions here. 

And if you thought there were some people who were against it, but
deliberately silent, I think they need to come out and say what they wanted.
The topic wasn’t such anathema that they could not even discuss it. I have
shown above that it was close to our earlier consensus positions. If they
don’t speak, and enough speak for the position, then that position goes out.
Not to speak out is either lack of confidence in the caucus, or its
processes as coordinated by me/us, which if true also needs to come out.

In any case whatever opposition there was it was about the subsequent IAB
related formulations of a separate name/ group (instead of tech community).
My original formulation as quoted above has not had clear comments against
it except by McTim, and I am still not sure if this formulation - close to
our earlier stated positions - itself a problem for anyone else. 

Parminder 

PS: in the quoted feb and may 07 statements, we do mention our first
priority of one third representation (implying no separate tech community
quota) and only, in terms of pragmatism, since the die was already cast, the
second priority of at least one fourth (conceding the tech group quota).

To quote " thus we would like to see such participation (of CS) expanded to
at least one fourth of the group, if not one third, and to the same levels
of the private sector and of the Internet technical community"

It is obvious that at a principle level we believed in no separate quota for
tech community, and only cross cutting inclusion, which is also clear from
our reference to it in the earlier quote on its cross-cutting nature. And
only as a second choice, in case the principle is not accepted, we concede a
quota for tech community.

These statements were made when the MAG was already formed, and we were
protesting against inadequate representation. There was no express processes
of review. In the present instance, we are preparing a statement in the
context of a situation where MAGs whole structure is being re-examined (or
should be). I would think it is time to state our principles more clearly.
But here we are wary of even discussing them. In fact those who suggested
the IAB formulation are merely using pragmatism in a different direction of
keeping the representation of these organizations as such, and only
clarifying the term.  

And I must comment on what you, Bill, said about the 'ship having set sail'
long ago. In that sense, - it has set sail foreclosing almost all
possibilities we want from IGF. So should we close our engagements with it.
Everything about WIPO has been written in language of IP, but there are
forces which are trying to make the same forum turn into something
structurally very different - access to knowledge, and expanding public
domain - and getting some success. CS cannot give up, else there is little
chance of progressive change. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:42 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> On 2/16/08 6:44 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to
> get
> > through the whole process.
> 
> Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and
> inconclusive
> debate about what what we are willing to call the TC, for quickly
> compiling
> the various points in play into a single doc people could look at, for
> labeling topics/sections for easy digestion, etc.  Whatever.
> 
> At this point I suggest we recalibrate:
> 
> 1.  Three separate statements is too much to expect quick consensus on.  I
> would do one on mAG renewal and one on the Delhi program, combining format
> and substantive suggestions.  Make them concise and easy to digest and
> react
> to (here and in the consultation).  Paragraphs of three lines, if not
> bullet
> points.
> 
> 2.  Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal
> line
> of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been
> discussed here, much less within the wider IGF.  Everyone reasons
> differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions
> or
> put things the same way etc.  The longer you go on, the higher the
> possibility someone has an issue with something.  You can lay out
> elaborate
> cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be
> said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them.
> 
> 3.  Moreover, the texts are just too long as floor interventions.  For
> example, your Friday text on the IGF format is already 3 pages and > 1,000
> words and you indicate there are more sections you want to add.  And
> that's
> just one of your proposed three.
> 
> 4.  I would also go for a bit more positive tone.  Even if some of us may
> share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the
> caucus to use language suggesting, inter alia, that the number of
> workshops
> "severely compromises the Œconvergent identity¹ of the IGF;" that
> "participants really did not take much away from any of" the main
> sessions,
> which featured discussions "which do not produce any fruitful outcomes;"
> that the main session speakers "just made their own interpretation of the
> issue" and "mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication
> on
> global Internet related public policy" resulting in "diversion or
> dilution;"
> and so on.  I think a better tone would be to say, right, we tried xyz in
> Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some
> new
> things that would be even more value-adding, etc.
> 
> Bottom line, there are like 50-60 people here who signed the caucus
> charter,
> many have strong and diverse views, and very few, including those who've
> been most active over the years, are choosing to participate in this
> discussion.   I think your best chance of generating more responses and
> buy
> in would be with relatively concise statements that hit the key points in
> a
> manner people can process readily.  I don't think you can operate on the
> silence is assent principle, and if in the end just a handful of people
> say
> yes we don't have caucus statements.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



____________________________________________________________
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