[governance] [process] the IGC charter

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think the idea of a separate list for organizational cruft is a fine  
idea.  I am not one who believes it necessary since i file everything  
in a separate mailbox for every list until i am ready to read and then  
read the threads (by subject) i find interesting. Except, of course,  
on IGC where I read absolutely every word and will continue to do so  
until relieved of appeals team duties - so I would probably redirect  
them to same mailbox for simplicity sake, but i do not mind if they  
come with separate addresses.

In the meantime, just adding the [process] token in the subject lines  
allows those who abhor process discussions to just flush the entire  
thread.

a.


On 14 Jul 2008, at 14:24, Ray Plzak wrote:

> FWIW - ARIN has two lists. One is the public policy mail list which  
> is open to the community for the discussion of Internet Number  
> Resource policy. The other is the ARIN discuss list which is for  
> members to discuss member matters. The IGC could certainly bifurcate  
> in a similar manner. It just takes a little discipline to keep the  
> list discussions focused on the appropriate topics.
>
> Ray
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 13:38
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [process] the IGC charter
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> while I would argue against a split of lists between the task of the
>> caucus (developing consensual positions) and the general forum or
>> platform role of this list, I think it would help if we tried to  
>> shift
>> the process discussions elsewhere.
>> Sometime back somebody suggested the list Avri initiated in 2006. If
>> this this the wrong space with the wrong charter, then lets create
>> another list for people who are willing to sort out the  
>> ambivalences of
>> the caucus charter.
>>
>> I forgot to explain in my earlier mail why I think that Bill's
>> suggestion (to create a new discussion space for those working on
>> common
>> positions) is not a good idea. In my view, mailing lists benefit from
>> an
>>  "operative component". I know only few mailing lists worth reading
>> that lack any practical agenda such as sharing information or working
>> on
>> collective goals. The few lists I know happen to be private.
>> I would predict that this list would soon resemble the former DNSO's
>> general assembly list if it lost any concrete purpose.
>> Cynics assert that even now the difference between both lists isn't
>> that
>> noticeable. So, lets not make things worse.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> wcurrie at apc.org wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I indicated to Parminder that I support the Charter but I do agree
>> with Bill that we should conduct the election in terms of the Charter
>> without disenfranchising anyone.
>>>
>>> I do think we need to find a way to both maintain the vigorous  
>>> debate
>> on the list as well as create a more effective method of finding
>> consensus on key issues in the global policy space from a broadly  
>> civil
>> society perspective. I sometimes wonder if it is possible to use a  
>> list
>> to find consensus on contested positions, but as Wolfgang's history  
>> of
>> the IGC reminds us iit has and can be done.
>>>
>>> I would support trying to explore this issue of consensus-building
>> after the election and I think we should choose the person who we
>> believe  will  be the most effective in building consensus in the IGC
>> when it is required to engage with global policy spaces, some of  
>> which
>> as Wolfgang identified are coming up in 2009.
>>>
>>> Willie
>>> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>

____________________________________________________________
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