[governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.

Avri Doria avri at ella.com
Sun May 22 13:38:16 EDT 2011 

Hi,

The problem with keeping a single list is that any strategic or tactical planning will be done by adhoc closed groups of self selected individuals.  That has happened for years and will probably continue to happen.

Then again having a closed list probably would not work as someone would be on the list whose real solidarity was with the PS/ICT so everything would leak anyway.  We will never be able to be as secretive or as single focused as PS/ICT and a 'closed' list will probably not achieve anything in the long run other than to give us false confidence that our information was not being misused and abused.

The IGC functions well as a place where a diverse group of CS leaning stakeholder groups and individuals (as well as observers) comes together to do some things, like present candidate lists etc and make generic pro CS statements.  To do anything serious, it must be done by coherent advocacy groups like APC or IT for Change and others, with the IGC serving as a clearinghouse for coordination when coordination is necessary or possible.  I do not think we can ever expect the IGC to be the action oriented group.  In a sense it is a multi-substakeholder group for Civil Society where various CS trends meet and find their common ground. But it seems the real advocacy emphasis has to come from other more focused groups.

a.

On 22 May 2011, at 13:13, CW Mail wrote:

> +1 supporting JH.
> 
> In any event, the discussion on IGC and IGF issues is in practice conducted by a small number of committed and informed people.
> It is beneficial that their and our discussion be conducted in public in a single forum.
> 
> CW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 May 2011, at 18:55, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 22.05.2011 17:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>> Can you elaborate your arguments, please?
>> 
>> I don't want to encourage what I argued against to begin with, another discussion about splitting the mailing list.
>> 
>> This mailing list has proven to be flexible enough to fulfill several functions, providing an open platform to discuss IG issues across single stakeholder groups and simultaneously providing the space to develop collective statements. It is actually amazing that this mailing list with its highly diverse list of subscribers has managed to survive for so many years without losing significant shares of subscribers (which doesn't say much about its actual readers though).
>> 
>> A splitting of the list risks destroying this space without any clear benefit. We don't have that many secrets to hide from other stakeholder groups (at least that I would know of) that seem worth taking such a chance. If there is a need for strategizing, small groups can always form offlist, and have often formed for that matter.
>> 
>> This mailing list is now 8 or 9 years old. It survived the end of WSIS and it might even survive the demise of the IGF. Its asset is its openness and its subscriber list. It would be sad if we destroyed it in the name of narrow understanding of civil society.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/22/11 5:49 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times
>>>>>> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who
>>>>>> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open
>>>>>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy
>>>>>> organization.
>>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating between
>>>>> "IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society
>>>>> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of
>>>>> institutions?
>>>> 
>>>> They share one mailing list and I would advise against changing that.
>>>> 
>>>> jeanette
>>>>> 
>>>>> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate
>>>>> organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not very
>>>>> ably that at the moment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different
>>>>>> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary
>>>>>> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership
>>>>>> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since
>>>>>> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a
>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the
>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only
>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>>>>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>>>>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new
>>>>>>> list and
>>>>>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your
>>>>>>> reactions
>>>>>>> first on the current list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> izumi
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is
>>>>>>>> open to
>>>>>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>>>>>>>> officials,
>>>>>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore,
>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to
>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share
>>>>>>>> here, can
>>>>>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your
>>>>>>>> strategy
>>>>>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>>>>>>> members will
>>>>>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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, visit:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> 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, visit:
>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>  http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> 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, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> 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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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

More information about the Governance mailing list