AW: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi

thx. for the discussion.

The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 

If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..

Wolfgang



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
 
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> ...
>  WK is
> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>
> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
> voice" says concretely!
>

I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
the issue implied by my statement.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
> > voice.
>
> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>

So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
(you choose your preferred adjective)?
Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
cannot always
do)
and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.

In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
untie (solve) in order to be functional again.

Mawaki


> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
> than it would claim to be.
>
> 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