[governance] Process issues for future consensus calls

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Dear Bertrand, in my view, this is certainly a reference list, but a lot 
of it was done, in certain ways, in this process. It is hard to follow 
this by the book in a group which is totally asynchronous (many are just 
returning from holidays now, as it happens in July-August in the North, 
for example), entirely composed of volunteers, and in which all is done 
through an email list with very lightweight moderation (as it should be).

So, OK, let us consider suggestions as these as templates which, once 
agreed upon, we will try to follow as much as possible and within our 
obvious limitations -- which, by the way, the likes of Nitin know about, 
so they will take our collective statements with these limitatins in mind.


Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Dear Jeremy,
> 
> Just a few comments on process, following your exchanges :
> 
> - distiction between voting and consensus is important. the goal in drafting
> documents and inputs is to get consensus and avoid voting as much as
> possible (espectially as the number of people actually voting on drafts is
> always relatively limited and this can reduce the credibility of the outcome
> unnecessarily in the view of outside actors)
> - irrespective of the online tools that can be potentially used, there is
> one thing we could explore in preparing such inputs : the creation of a
> "drafting team", whose responsibility is to sift through the comments on the
> list, prepare a skeleton of comments and identify the points that :
> 
>    1. seem to get consensus and don't need to be discussed further
>    2. get significant support but need refining of the formulation
>    3. raise a potentially contentious topic and require an in-depth
>    discussion
> 
> - the process, conducted iteratively, allows to progress in the drafting
> without reopening everything until the last minute
> - additionally, dissenting views can be integrated with formulations like :
> "some members of the IGC nonetheless believe that ...."
> - formation of a drafting group (different for each issue) can be done
> through volunteeers and would alleviate the burden on the co-coordinators
> (otherwise, they will be in charge of all drafting);
> - co-coordinators could therefore devote more time to identifying occasions
> where input will be needed (so as to prepare in advance and not ant the last
> minute), as well as topics on which some sort of issue paper could be
> prepared (for instance, once the main sessions themes for an IGF are
> defined, the iGC could endeavour to prepare some neutral background
> material).
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bertrand
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/02/2010, at 3:12 AM, McTim wrote:
>>
>>> However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting and finding
>>> consensus.  IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing coordinators.
>>>
>>> Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO we do NOT
>>> vote on statements.  We indicate support for statements (or lack
>>> thereof).  While the difference is subtle it is important for some of
>>> us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as is.
>> I have no problem with that.  Thanks for the suggestion.
>>
>>>> It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we
>> could
>>>> experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need
>> for
>>>> confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's
>>>> approach would (in my view) have required in this case.
>>> As long as we use the website specified in the charter.
>> I would love that to be so, but it's not technically possible. :-(  We
>> don't have sufficient access rights to the igcaucus.org Web site for the
>> necessary software to be installed there.  I would have to use the
>> igf-online.net site, which is meant as a public, non-partisan site open to
>> all to use for IGF-related purposes.  I am currently its administrator after
>> inheriting it from the defunct Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition, but
>> would love for some other group (eg. the Remote Participation Working Group)
>> to officially take it over.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>> Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>
>> CI is 50
>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
>> 2010.
>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
>> rights around the world.
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
>> necessary.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> 
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t