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

[McTim]

<top-post warning>

Dear Bertrand,

Thank you for your very diplomatic and succinct summary.  I agree
completely that there is a process issue and a substantive issue.

For the rest, according to the charter, there doesn't seem to me a
mechanism for us to revisit the nomcoms decisions on particular
candidates (nor has anyone called for it IIRC).

My personal opinion is that we should follow the nomcoms plea to get
this all sorted out (see their recommendations list) before we "move
on".  I find it quite troubling that so many are pushing a "rights
agenda" for the Internet, but can willingly turn their backs on a
"rights issue" inside the caucus itself.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim




On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle
<bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 :
>
> 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 ?
> 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")
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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