"bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

[Avri Doria]

On 2 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Parminder wrote:

>
> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious  
> that
> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition.


I am not sure I agree this.  Advocacy requires taking and supporting   
a particular position.   It does not require taking a loyalty oath or  
passing a litmus test.  There is another governance CS group for those  
who require purity of belief and origin.


> And
> also to have a set of broad common political positions.

In so far as we can reach consensus on these positions, I agree with  
you.  and it does appear that the IGC did reach consensus on the views  
put forward in the statements.  I think this was a good thing, though  
I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do a  
quick call at the end.  I  do agree that the IGC needs to advocate  
positions, then again, I too signed the charter.   What troubles me is  
the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear  
belonging to any to group or that those who do belong to other groups  
are somehow suspect.  Or that we must somehow get everyone we  
recommend to take sort sort of loyalty oath or pass some sort of  
litmus test.  Though I agree that we should recommend people we  
believe can be effect voices for the IGC's common political positions  
while acting in their individual capacities.

> In fact at the time
> the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying  
> basic
> policy orientation of the caucus at a later time.

True, but we have never done this. and I thinkone reason we haven't is  
that it appears like it might end up a divisive activity.  I think  
step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement we  
are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have  
publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept.

Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the  
the numbers issue.  How many we get versus how many they get.   In  
terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the  
20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people  
suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those  
recmmened by civil society players.  I think within each of those  
groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple  
identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro  
private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro  
PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the  
disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ...  and  
of course members of the internet community and of academia and an  
even split between the genders.  I think it would be a bad idea for us  
to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z  
positions to AC.   I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe  
that is that way the names will be selected.  I think the names will  
be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people  
have an association and on their relevant expertise.  Of course that  
is only my belief, something else could happen when the lists get to  
the UNSG's office..

I think each group that recommends names should pick a diverse group  
of people who they think can represent their views and who they think  
can be competent in arguing for those views.  As a wise man in another  
context explained to me when i was arguing for more participation for  
my group in a joint group, in a consensus environment it is not the  
body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice.

a.


____________________________________________________________
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