[governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list

[Milton L Mueller]

Thanks, Bill for a well-thought out reply. I find myself supporting the
position you advance in regard to what constitutes membership in this
caucus, and why it is no problem to clarify who considers themselves in
and who doesn't. 

However, let me also try to clarify what may be motivating Avri and
McTim's position (as I understand them) in order to pull out some
important and valid points they make. 

I think Avri would like to see this list be "multi-stakeholder" rather
than a political arm of some sector called "civil society." So if there
are lots of people from govt, IOs, Internet administration agencies,
etc., on this list and they are willing to engage in dialogue with us
then we should consider their opinions. We want them to participate, but
not to vote on our coordinators, etc. 

Personally, I believe there is a measure of validity in this but it's
also true that most of those people are simply here as observers/
watchers of the environment. Very few are actually interested in
engaging. At its worst, it can become a one-way flow of information that
can be used strategically by people who may not share our views and
interests. 

McTim provides an example of another issue. My understanding is that he
is a member, albeit one who often disagrees with the mainstream
positions here. Obviously I agree that the purpose of having this group
is to formulate and advance a civil society-based conception of the
public interest in IG. However, this purpose requires this group to
accommodate a reasonable spectrum of opinion about what public policies
are actually in the public interest. Because civil society itself is
diverse on this question, it would be a mistake to allow a single,
narrow ideology to establish a litmus test for inclusion, especially if
and when the Secretariat of IGF grants us some kind of recognition as
representing "civil society." So I would rather have a McTim or two or
three around and insiders rather than outsiders. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list
> 
> Hi Avri,
> 
> Nice seeing you in Paris.  Now time for some friendly online
> disagreement, oh joy.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think the problem we are having is 2 (or probably more) different
> ideas of
> > membership.
> >
> > One is that that for all intents and purpose all those on the list
are
> full
> > members in everything but voting.  For voting one must hold to
charter
> in
> > order to vote.    I..e they can particpate in consensus discussions
and
> > everything else - except a vote.
> 
> I wasn't aware that anyone has ever had this idea or had seriously
> advanced it over the past 5 + years.  Maybe I've failed to read
> between someone's lines and into their heads.
> 
> The caucus was set up during WSIS as part of a larger CS coalition
> with the explicit intent of promoting public interest positions on IG.
>  We negotiated texts and made interventions in the governments'
> debates that reflected shared values, and we were small enough to know
> who each other was. During WSIS I the list membership and caucus were
> largely coterminous, but from early 04 the former grew rapidly to
> constitute an overwhelming majority of subscribers that had no
> interest in collaboratively promoting public interest positions on IG
> in international forums and, inter alia, did not sign the charter when
> invited to.  They (includes staff folks from international business
> groups, ICANN, UN agencies, governments, etc) are here because they're
> interested in IG issues or at least have reason to keep an eye on the
> discussions, not because they believe themselves to be in the caucus.
> Since they're not confused on the point, I don't see how anyone else
> could be.  This is the first I've heard of it.
> 
> > Another is that there are two type of list members, those who are
Caucus
> > members and those who are not.  And that at any moment in time we
should
> be
> > able to distinguish real members from list members.
> 
> Maybe not at any given moment, but perhaps once, for a first time
> since the charter was floated years ago, especially since we don't
> even seem to have a list of people who subscribed to it then.
> 
> > The charter currently defines membership in the first way.  Some
seem to
> > want some version of the second definition.  If there is a majority
who
> want
> > to change the charter it can be changed. And there are subtle
changes or
> > major change we could make if that is what we are into.
> 
> Huh?  The charter doesn't say join the listserv and you're in the
> caucus except for voting.  It says, "The members of the IGC are
> individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter
> of the caucus."  Full stop.  The charter would only need to be changed
> if we wanted to adopt your first position, that anyone who simply
> signs onto a listserv is hence a caucus member.
> 
> > My issue is with living up to the charter we have and changing it
> explicitly
> > if that is what we want to do.
> 
> Parminder is simply asking who considers themselves to be in the
> caucus. I can't fathom how that violates the charter.   And if we
> cannot bring ourselves to say who is in a group, I don't think we
> should pretend that the group exists.
> 
> > As for trolls, I would think that netiquette is netiquette and all
list
> > members are the same in that respect.  Or do you suggest that a
voting
> > member of the caucus should have more permission to engage in bad
> netiquette
> > then a non voting member?
> 
> No, I did not suggest this.  On an open list one obviously could not
> have a rule allowing one group to behave more badly than another.  But
> at a personal level I'm more prepared to endure diatribes etc from
> someone who is committed to promoting public interest positions and
> trying to make the caucus function to that end than I am from someone
> who's here to promote other agendas or even disrupt caucus efforts.
> That's just my choice, and knowing who's in the caucus would
> facilitate this bottom up, self-governing perception management.
> Others of course make other choices and if they don't care about the
> sources and objectives of bad netiquette and even trollism, that's up
> to them.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> >
> >
> > On 27 Jun 2008, at 18:06, William Drake wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's
objection.
> >>> Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and
agree to
> be
> >>> members of this caucus - not the other way around.
> >>
> >> But we never vote.  So we have no idea which of the 360 list
> >> subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with
> >> consensus building, troll disruptions, etc.
> >>
> >> BD
> >> _
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Director, Project on the Information
>  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
>  Graduate Institute for International Studies
>  Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> http://tinyurl.com/38dcxf
> ***********************************************************
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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