AW: [governance] [process] the IGC charter

Mon Jul 14 12:27:58 EDT 2008

Dear list,

after reading all the recent mails and rethinking various arguments I tend to support Jeanette. 

First priority for the IGC should be to have a discussion platform as open and inclusive as possible. This creates unavoidably some problems, as we have seen the recent years. But regardless of all the personal battles the list produces enough good arguments, information and links so a lot of people benefit. This is of key importance. And this shuld be the overriding principle and guideline. 

Procedural issues - like elections - are certainly also important but procedures have to serve the purpose. Insofar I could live with very pragmativc procedures, as long as they serve the main purpose of the list:To promote, stimulate and, where needed, steer open and bottom up debates on IG issues from a civil society perspective. 

But let me use this opportunity also to remind both oldies and newbies on the list about the IGC history. It is worth to remember  where the IGC comes from. Without WSIS, no IGC. 

IG was originally no issue in the WSIS context during PrepCom1 (Geneva, July 2002). This changed during PrepCom2 (Geneva, Febaruary 2003. As a result of the series of regional Ministerial Conferences (in particular the meeting in Beirut) various governments discovered IG as a big issue and pushed for it during PrepCom2. This was the moment, when some individuals immeditaly argued that IG needs the full involvment of non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular of individual Internet users and civil society. 
see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pc2/inf/workshop/flyer3.doc

At this time, the organisational and institutional level of CS in WSIS was rather low. Alan and Lousie proposed (top down) a IG bureau, other proposed, bottom up a Content & Themse CS Working Group which should include working groups from the various fields of interests - from media to oprivacy, from IP to financing. . 

This was the moment (in the ILO building in Geneva in February 2003)) when YJ and I myself pushed for something like an IG caucus and co-chaired it until the end of the geneva phase. The main purpose (and practical need at this time) was to create a flat institutional network which would be able to channel CS input on Internet Governance issues into the intergovernmental WSIS process. Before that there was just a bunch of engaged individuals which were mainly ignored by governments regardless of the good points they raised in individual statements. The recognition and the power of the IGC came with its structured approach, its specific knoweldge and expertise and its linkage to the ground.  It was like the re-invention of ICANNs At Large movement which was killed in 2002. 

One of its first success was to open the intergovernmental WG on IG issues in Paris during the WSIS Interim PrepCom (July 2003) in the famous night session in UNESCOs HQ basement when CS people were confronted governmental representatives - who wanted to extend the principle of national sovereignty and state control over the Internet - with arguments on the borderless nature of the cyberspace, procedurs for IP address alocation, the DNS and the P2P principle..This helped a lot to change to tone of the debate. 

The IGC raised its voice louder and louder on the way to Geneva (December 2003) and became a serious key player, in particular in PrepCom3++ before the Summit where the idea of the WGIG emerged and its mandate was drafted. This para. gave for the first time CS a clear defined role in IG in the WSIS process and paved the way for CS representatives in WGIG (which developed within  WGIG the idea of the IGF). 

Jeanette and Adam, who took over in Geneva, pushed it further foreward and the IGC was exremely successful in  contributing the the Tunis compromise, including the IGF. This was in particular the case during PrepCom3 (Geneva September 2005) when, inter alia,  Jeanettes key statement on the final day (with a EU-US controversy in the background) convinced Ambassador Khan to reconsider his planning for PrepCom3+ and to negotiate the final compromise until the bitter end in the plenary which allowed CS to stay in the room until the deal was done. Jeanette and Adam can be proud that the IGC grew under their leadership and got this high recognition.  

When Parminder und Vittorio overtook the leadership after Tunis, we realized soon that it became more and more complicated to move forward without more defined procedures and we entered into this phase were proecedural and substantial discussions became mixed. I was also very disappointed that Vittorio more less disappeared leaving a gap in the leadership. 

However, at the end of the day also in the post Tunis phase the IGC was able to play a rather significant role in the IGF process, which started in 2006 with prepared statements in the Geneva consultations, representation in the MAG and workshops in Athens and Rio. So thanks Parminder for helping this done.

With this history the new leadership faces a big challenge. Even if I did not register and have obviously no vote now I would express my support for both Ian and Michael. Both are involved in the debates since years, they know the issues and have the international standing and recognition to be respected by the community also ouside the CS groups. 

IG today is broader than IGF. We saw recently the OECD conference (where Michael was involved). We will have national ansd regional IGFs. And we will have an At Large Summit within ICANN in Mexico in March 2009. And there will be an ITU World Telecommunicaiton Policy Forum also in March 2009. In all these events, the IGC neds a strong voice. This is a great opportunity and I hope that regardless of all the day-to-day-confrontation collective wisdom will overcame and we will be able to continue this IGC success story.

Best regards

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
Gesendet: Mo 14.07.2008 12:44
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
Cc: Avri Doria
Betreff: Re: [governance] [process] the IGC charter

Hi, I agree with what Bill recommends regarding the voting procedure,
which is:

So I'd follow the rules
 > for the election and afterwards try to see if those who've affirmed their
 > membership can't have a useful discussion of what they want the
caucus to be
 > and perhaps amend the charter if there's sufficient support for that.

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.

jeanette

William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 7/13/08 8:06 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
>> - there is no intrinsic harm in asking people to say they agree with
>> the charter.  in fac as a step between elections as a way to include
>> mew people as members it is a good idea.
>
> Agree
> 
>> - The charter requires that the vote be sent to all subscribers and
>> that in the act of voting they (re) affirm their membership as CS and
>> in the IGC as defined in the charter.  To use this list as is proposed
>> by the coordinators, to define who can receive a ballot, is in breach
>> of the charter as i read it.
>
> Avri is right that the charter says this, there can be no denying it, it's
> clearly stated.  However, I also think it's a real flaw in the charter, one
> which I wish in retrospect we'd debated more seriously when we wrote the
> thing. I recognize that there are those who prefer the caucus to be an
> amorphous blob---in McTim's words, a "zenlike/anarchic" space one can decide
> to be in or not "in the moment" depending on the weather, whether they had a
> nice lunch and are feeling mellow, etc.  But a grouping based on this
> shallow a level of commitment to shared values and positions is unlikely to
> be able to agree or achieve much of anything, and indeed the caucus has
> struggled post-WSIS in part because of it.  It's certainly not how I thought
> of the caucus when I joined five years ago (suspect the same holds for some
> others here), nor is it the zeitgeist of other, more effect ICT-oriented CS
> coalitions one could name.  Sorry if that sounds insufficiently postmodern.
>
> Personally, I would favor establishing a separate space for those want to be
> in the caucus and do public interest advocacy and leave the gov list for
> broader multistakeholder debate and mud slinging.  I think this would be
> liberating both for people who want to be in a real coalition and for people
> who don't and don't want to read angst-ridden sausage making threads.  But I
> suspect I'm a minority of one on that.
>
> In any event, while I supported Parminder's suggestion of polling to see who
> thinks they're in the caucus and would like to know that myself, I cannot
> see how the caucus as it is can follow an election procedure that is sharply
> at odds with the explicit wording of its charter.  So I'd follow the rules
> for the election and afterwards try to see if those who've affirmed their
> membership can't have a useful discussion of what they want the caucus to be
> and perhaps amend the charter if there's sufficient support for that.
>
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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