[governance] [process] the IGC charter

[Danny Butt]

Hi all

Just a note to follow up Bill's point - one of the reasons I don't  
contribute so much to the list is because of the interference between  
1) the discussion function and 2) the attempts to influence e.g. the  
IGF process etc. The ability to debate issues is often overwhelmed by  
the (perhaps necessary) procedural issues and administrivia of the IGF- 
related processes. And the ability to formulate an effective,  
organised intervention into intergovernmental processes is not really  
aided by freewheeling debate where all of us pick out our own personal  
points of interest to discuss.

So I would just like to register support for Bill's suggestion,  
including that the details of the debate should occur after sorting  
out the elections, but here I just want to let others on the list know  
that there might be a range of opinions on this issue and that it  
should be discussed. I actually think a version of this issue  
underlies the process/charter debate happening now, and refactoring  
that debate to the terms suggested by Bill might prevent this kind of  
procedural debate reoccuring.

Cheers,

Danny

--
http://www.dannybutt.net



On 14/07/2008, at 9:38 PM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi Je
>
> On 7/14/08 12:44 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hi, I agree with what Bill recommends regarding the voting procedure,
>
> It would be good to hear from others and get put this issue to  
> rest.  I
> don't believe I've heard more than one person arguing for ignoring the
> charter procedure, so a priori it shouldn't be complicated.
>
>> However, I am not in favor of Bill's idea to create a formal seperate
>> space for the caucus members. This list has always been a somewhat  
>> odd
>> hybrid of a general platform for disussing IG related topics and a  
>> civil
>> society space for agreeing on advocacy positions. When I was co- 
>> chairing
>> the caucus, I was even a bit proud of the growing subscriber list and
>> the fact that we got more and more non civil society lurkers who  
>> found
>> our debates relevant enough to listen on a regular basis. I wouldn't
>> want to jeopardize the general platform function of this list. On the
>> contrary, I would do anything possible to ensure high quality
>> discussions that make it worth listening. A seperation of the two
>> functions of this list seems a potential death knell to me.
>
> This made sense to me circa early 2004, it doesn't anymore.  In fact,
> multiple people are saying they don't want to read discussions of  
> caucus.
> The interest is in broader IG discussions, which would remain lively  
> and
> which caucus people would certainly continue to engage on here even  
> if there
> was a separate list to sort out statements at IGF consultations, MAG
> nominations, workshops, and the like.  Anyway, this was a side  
> comment,
> probably it'd be a distraction to get into it now; I'd suggest we  
> sort out
> what's happening with the election business and return to the  
> existential
> issues afterwards.
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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






____________________________________________________________
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