[governance] How to move forward ? (was : summarizing)

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Dear all,

Thanks for summarizing. Now, how do we move forward ? (apologies for the
long post)

If I understand well, there were *two basic issues* :

   1. a *process *issue : did the NomCom overstep its mandate and not
   respect the Charter in making a decision using additional criteria without
   coming back to the Caucus ?
   2. a *substantive *issue : is there agreement within the caucus regarding
   the decision itself (ie : to exclude some candidates based on their specific
   affiliation)  ?

Regarding the (lengthy) discussions : a very rapid reading of some posts
(and please correct me if I'm wrong) gives the impression that the caucus as
a whole :

   - considers that in a certain way the response to the first (process)
   question is more or less yes : the NomCom should probably have come back to
   the caucus,
   - remains of diverse opinions regarding the second point (whether this
   criteria should have been applied at all)

*How big is the problem ?*

Were there a broad agreement within the caucus that the decision itself (ie
the exclusion of some candidates because of their affiliation) was basically
right, all we would need to do is to envisage a Charter modification to make
the process clearer (preliminary posting of criteria, coming back to the
caucus for any additional criteria ....). But there would be no urgency to
do it right now and we could all focus for the moment on the preparation of
the IGF Hyderabad itself.

If there is indeed disagreement within the caucus on the decision itself, we
do have a problem. But we can go on arguing for the next three months about
this in more and more divisive discussions or try to move forward. And in
that respect, the critical question is : how big is this problem ? Which
boils down to the following *two simple alternatives *:

Q1 : does the list consider that :A) the existing slate of proposed
candidates, all in all, compose a sufficiently balanced group of valid
candidates that we can live with ? or
B) that this selection is so grossly weakened by the exclusion of some
specific candidates, that we need to reopen the process ?

Q2 :does the list consider that :
A) whatever criticism we may have regarding the procedure followed, we need
to/can move on this year and reform the process in the future after due
discussion ? or
B) that the violation is important enough to have delegitimized the NomCom
work and this justifies a re-run (partial or total) ?

*Should we move forward or reopen the process ? *

Unless a strong consensus emerges around answers Q1 B and Q2  B (which by
the way begs the question of the modalities of it : new nomcom or not,....),
my sense is we should move forward and focus for the moment on the
preparation of Hyderabad.

If readers on the list agree with this way of posing the problem (and
objections are of course possible), the key question is simple :

     *Does this debate justify in your view a re-run of the NomCom process ?

          YES (we need to reopen the process)        NO (let's move forward)
*

Can people on the list please forward to the coordinator their answer to
this question ?

I would personally vote *NO, let's move forward, *irrespective of my
position on the substance, and also in due consideration to the commendable
effort that the NomCom has indeed put into its selection process. The
important specific issue that triggered this whole debate does not diminish
the rest of their work and NomComs are always the natural targets of
criticism.

*Finally : Let's take this as an opportunity and not a division*

On a more general note, this discussion has put in full light, once again,
important questions that have regularly erupted on the list and must
eventually be addressed - albeit hopefully in a more constructive manner.
They are : the notion of stakeholders, "Civil society credentials", the very
nature of this list and criteria for participation in multi-stakeholder
bodies. These are no minor issues but we must not let them trigger ad
hominem arguments.

They are rather an important opportunity for the caucus to make a positive
contribution to clarifying what multi-stakeholder processes are and how they
should function. This is the natural continuation of what we have
collectively produced during the WSIS and should be legitimately proud of :
the very concept of a multi-stakeholder Forum and the very definition of
Internet Governance. Continuing this work is our common responsibility.

We do have different viewpoints, because of our different origins,
experiences and, yes, affiliations. But this is precisely what makes the
caucus valuable and the core online space where such - heated :-)-
discussions can take place in order to make the IGF an even greater success
than it already is.

The the way we will address those critical issues in the coming months will
determine the ongoing usefulness of the caucus for its members and its
credibility in the eyes of others. I am sure we can rise up to the challenge
and produce something that is truly useful.

I hope all this helps.

Best

Bertrand


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080612/513364a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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