[governance] Inquiry for a new vision into the future of IGC

Sun Jun 29 06:33:19 EDT 2014

Ian and all, 

I think it should be made clear that while the Community Informatics Network (CIN) has (by consensus) agreed to affiliate with the JNC it would look to participate (or not) in any such umbrella organization as an independent grouping with its specific priorities in Internet access and effective use and matters of social and economic justice all as they impact particularly on the grassroots and as well as it might be concerned with nominations/representations on behalf of CS to various bodies.

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 8:23 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] Inquiry for a new vision into the future of IGC

Because it has been referred to by Jeremy, I am forwarding again the comments and report (attached) from a poll into Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) last March. 

What is clear to me from the results of that poll is that if the CSCG group is to continue, it has to expand. On events since then, it is clear Just Net Coalition would be be one logical addition. 

However, as I remarked in March, “ The only ongoing role I can see for this group (CSCG) currently is to try to co ordinate civil society appointments to MAG. (unless other needs for civil society representation occur). Whether this justifies all the effort of a continuing organisation is a relevant question.”

The alternative would be IGC. However that would require a few changes so that IGC could respond more promptly, and also for the role and processes of IGC in doing this to be acceptable to the myriad parties who in the past few years have forwarded their own civil society MAG nominations. Quite clearly some substantial groups within IGC have not been happy for IGC to do this on their behalf in the past few years, thus leading to them making their own nominations. (although last year we were able achieve a degree of cross-nomination, not that it made a great difference)

The result of this multiple nominations practice has been some fairly dubious appointments to MAG purportedly representing civil society because we have no credible single body representing us in carrying out this function. So I agree with all the voices here who suggest we should find a way to put forward nominations as a single group if at all possible. The best vehicle to do this is certainly worth discussing.

Perhaps other groups who in the past few years have forwarded their own MAG nominations rather than support an IGC process might like to mention why they felt a need to do so. That might help to devise a better system.

Ian Peter

PS as regards the broader question of policy statements and policy co ordination – I do not think CSCG is a good vehicle for this.  IGC is potentially, but there has been difficulty in getting consensus positions here in the past, which led to the creation of Best Bits (where sign on statements not acceptable to 100% of civil society became a useful tool) and later to Just Net Coalition. Where there is potentially a broader consensus, I think IGC can play a very useful role, providing it continues to enjoy strong support from all groups.

From: Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:46 AM

To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 

Subject: Fw: straw poll results

Hi Everyone,

I have been waiting for a gap from other issues to publish the results of the recent poll as regards the future of the civil society co ordination group (cscg). But having come to the conclusion that any clear air from other issues is probably months away, I think people should be aware of the results now and give any feedback to the current group on next steps.

I am attaching a more detailed summary of the results. But a quick summary is

30 respondents

Most respondents favour a cscg that includes individuals as well as organisations

Strong feeling the group should have some sort of charter (however minimal)

Good support for 5 new members being added

Many more findings included in the document.

Some personal comments:

There is clearly a desire for this group to be expanded if it continues to exist.

The only ongoing role I can see for this group currently is to try to co ordinate civil society appointments to MAG.(unless other needs for civil society representation occur). Whether this justifies all the effort of a continuing organisation is a relevant question.

Many of the questions I think should await formation of a new expanded group, eg

a.       Evolution of a charter

b.      Whether or not to rotate existing members and if so when (see survey findings on this)

Anyway, here it is for comments and discussion.

Ian Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140629/b03ed38e/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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