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

Fri Jan 15 15:34:15 EST 2010

Where did you find such a notion?
""required to claim "legitimacy" in the face of statements.""

I am always looking for new standards to be applied to "what is legitimate". This is true especially when it is used to suggest what is illigitimate.

In 1,000 years of western jurisprudence we have held true to the notion of silent admissions and adoption by failure to object. This is a logical default position.  If you have an interest and do not object when you are reasonably able to do so --- well then you are either forbidden from later objection or determined to accept. (a sword or a shield)

People must be held accountable for joining and then not participating.  They lend their support by joining. If they do not object it must rationally be assumed they support. People who want it both ways are in effect stealing their claim to participation. If we have ten who support, none who object and you who say it is illigitmate then where does your claim come from?  Change the numbers ever so much and it does not change the lack of support for your argument.

Failure to object must be considered support in a civil society.  If it is not then everyone must contribute at every second. That is logical nonsense. If you have a cogent argument in opposition to this I would hope you would say it. If not, put your membership here on a resume', wait until after discussion and then complain and then claim that the group you belong to is illigitimate????

--- On Fri, 1/15/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 8:03 PM

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, PhD
http://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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

____________________________________________________________
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/20100115/bbaca746/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