[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[Norbert Bollow]

Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> [1] wrote:

> +1 to the thought extracted below. Thanks Norbert for trying to herd
> all the cats :)
> 
>
> -- 
> Regards,
>
> Nick
> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic
> mangling.
>
> On 12 Feb 2013, at 20:20, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> I do not think that there's anything fundamentally wrong with the
>> process that I've been trying to implement here, of having relatively
>> informal online editing followed by a formal call, with a deadline,
>> to raise any issues about the text that has resulted from the
>> informal process, and then having a consensus-oriented process to
>> resolve the issues that have been raised  


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ashton-Hart


[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Perhaps a clarification is needed here.

This is the _Civil_Society_ Internet Governance Caucus.

We welcome and value the participation of people from other stakeholder
groups in general discussions, but the official, formal statements of
the Caucus need to explicitly represent an aggregated civil society
perspective.

It also happens to follow logically from the text of our charter
that only civil society actors can participate in the formal consensus
process for the official, formal statements of the Caucus. I'm willing
to explain this if desired (it's not as immediately clear as I'd like it
to be, but it does follow logically) -- but I really think that it
shouldn't be necessary to argue this explicitly.

The distinction between stakeholder groups is not always totally clear,
and I would suggest that when participating as a guest in the Caucus
of another stakeholder group, and in any boundary cases (like when
someone can be reasonably seen as being part of multiple stakeholder
categories at the same time), explicit disclosure is an important step.
One way to practice explicit disclosure is to use a .sig that
explicitly mentions the employer (or other stakeholder group
affiliation), possibly as part of a disclaimer that opinions expressed
are not to be taken as official positions of the employer.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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