[governance] [Re-post] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES + thematic working groups, YES or NO

[William Drake]

Hi

On Jan 29, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 29/01/2010, at 8:19 PM, Parminder wrote:
> 
>> While  appreciate your effort to take this forward in this manner, this is to point to a technical issue... From my experience, I think most people here would just say, yes, even if when they agree to the whole lot, then say yes + thematic working groups. This would let to the erroneous impression that they do not support thematic groups... Since many agreed immediately to Bill's proposal of this change, I do think that the general feeing in the group is for keeping this in. I suggest you just put it in the statement, and give the option to people to vote yes, or yes, but minus WGs.... Sorry, if this sounds bothersome. Just trying to help :)
> 
> It was your proposal originally, posted on 21 January.  It made its way into the draft posted on 27 January.  McTim disagreed with it and argued it be struck.  Bill asked to change the wording by removing "of MAG members plus outsiders".  Lee agreed with Bill's email generally (not mentioning this part in particular).  So did I miss it when "many agreed immediately"?
> 
> I'm actually not convinced there is a a consensus for new thematic working groups (much as I may like the idea).  Consequently I'm not going to change the options to voting YES or YES - WGs, because that will only confuse people more.  As a compromise however I am happy to query those who voted just YES off-list, and ask them to revise their vote on-list if they really meant YES + thematic working groups.

I asking that there be a line on WGs. I also said

On Jan 29, 2010, at 10:17 AM, William Drake wrote:

>  Why not just replace "The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders" with "The IGF could also organize thematic working groups..." and leave the precise modalities of participation and input TBD?  

But I guess that was ruled unacceptable, since the text of the consensus calls again says

On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.]

My concern with this is more procedural than substantive (although I don't share the view that a conference requires a PolitBureau to organize everything, rather than having spaces for stakeholder initiative).  Others made other suggestions that were similarly discarded.  

I am at the same time coordinating a drafting team in the GNSO, on the AoC implementation plan.  When corporate lobbyists or others ask that language be included, I don't take it upon myself to decide this gets in, this stays out, this I'll reword to suit my views rather than those of the person who made the suggestion—even if I strongly disagree with it.  If there's no obvious consensus it goes in brackets and then we try to work it out.  We used to do things that way in the IGC, and I don't recall us deciding on a more centralized approach.  And there is no urgency here that requires short circuiting participatory decision making.  Parminder is right that we all should have moved more quickly rather than waiting, and it's a pity if this can't be drawn into the Synthesis Report, but that's water over the bridge.  At this point it doesn't really matter if the thing isn't done for a week, Ginger can still read it at the consultation.  What does matter is that IGC follows trusted procedures and preserves a sense of community .

Best,

Bill

PS: Parminder you're right, I went back and looked and the TA only refers to a "forum," even if people often characterized conversationally it as a "process," so that would indeed be the appropriate terminology.  In contrast, as Wolfgang noted, to governmental and IO reps an IGC statement referring to it as an "institution" would likely be read rather differently, e.g. as something they should be managing, consistent with UN practice.  Hopefully they'll all be up on their social theory and be familiar with one of the dozens of non-ordinary language definitions of institutions so as to avoid undue inferences....


 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100129/daa675a2/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