[governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments?

Fri Jan 15 15:03:30 EST 2010

Hello Oliver,

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:

>  Jeremy,
>
> Le 15/01/2010 17:46, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>
> *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of
> the IGF*
>
>
>  We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts,
> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil
> society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We
> look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in
> the IGF over the course of its renewed term.
>
>  *About the IGC*
>
>  The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are
> actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead
> up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is
> to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy
> making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing
> list, who have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can
> be found at http://www.igcaucus.org.
>
>
>
> Thank you for writing this statement but I am really sorry - I *strongly*
> object to the statement as it is currently phrased.
>
> Okay - I'm not sure whether I am "allowed" to be saying this, but whilst I
> think that your writing style and ability is impeccable, and whilst I agree
> with some of the points developed, I also need to point out that the
> statements which make up this submission are seriously misleading about the
> amount of support this statement has behind it.
>
>
I agree with you on this observation.

> In a previous message, you said:
> "There were 36 responses to the survey; 26 full, and 10 partial (since no
> questions were compulsory).  This amounts to about a quarter of our
> membership, which isn't bad at all in my opinion. "
>
> Am I correct to assume that the IGC statement is based on these responses?
>
> In the IGC statement, you now mention "400 individuals" in mailing lists -
> so as far as I understand, you're got responses from less than 10% of the
> coalition's individuals.
>

Your calculations are correct.

> You therefore *cannot* have sentences in the release saying:
> "We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which
> reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil
> society" or comments such as: "it is widely accepted" or "Many also believe"
> because the opinions you are describing, are from an absolute minority of
> IGC members. Either that, or you should not use the figure of "400
> individuals" in the statement and should mention somewhere that only 36
> responses were received.
>

I partially disagree with you on your exacting standards for using
expressions such as "rough consensus" or "many also believe".   With a list
of 400 members as volunteers, the maximum number of active participants is
not likely to be in excess of a hundred. This is broadly true of any
voluntary organization with volunteers as members. 36 responses out of an
overall strength of 400 is a fair indication of a rough consensus. If we
expect a 50% + vote for every decision, or a quorum for even the most
important discussions, it is going be very difficult to handle IGC tasks. So
we need some tolerance towards coordinators / working group heads who will
find it impossible to proceed with any decision if we are to insist on a
quorum or a 50% approval.

>
> I'm sorry Jeremy, for having to write such an email. I am
> not criticizing you in person: I think you did a great job of trying to pull
> some text together in such a short length of time, but I am concerned about
> the IGC's actual *legitimacy* in the face of such a statement. The fault for
> a "failure to have a consensus document written in time" falls onto our
> collective shoulders - and I will stand out there and say "yes I have failed
> to take the time to help this year, I am sorry, and I'll try to do better
> next time", and I hope that others will too.
>

No, it is not going to happen next year, not with the present standards of
participation. It might happen if the IGC caucus insists on an
electronic equivalent of the attendance standards of Rotary Clubs. Are we as
members willing to be governed by rules of minimum participation such as
agree to vote on at least two third of the issues posed or contribute to the
discussions in half the number of topics, or lose membership? In such a
strict environment it may be possible to achieve the participation required
to claim "legitimacy" in the face of statements.

> But in times of doubt, wisdom directs that strong statements are not made
> for the sake of making strong statements. If you are in doubt about what the
> IGC really wishes to say, then, please do not include ambiguities that make
> consensus appear where it is not, or crowds appear where there's just a
> handful of people.
>

> A "strong" statement can just end up being a "wrong" statement, and that's
> not good for anybody.
>

While agree that care must be taken before making 'strong' statements, I
feel that it is OK to talk of rough consensus based on rough assessments
that come from experience. Unless there are indicatively strong, adverse
responses from a few participants,from which the adverse mood of the
participants is assessed, it should be OK for the coordinators to assume a
"rough consensus".

I think this is what is practically possible.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.

>
> Warmest regards,
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100116/ac024c1a/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

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