[Mmwg] Re: IGF mechanism 5.0

[Taran Rampersad]

Milton Mueller wrote:
>>>> Taran Rampersad <cnd at knowprose.com> 1/23/2006 1:30:33 AM >>>
>>>>         
>> I agree with Vittorio.
>>     
>
> huh? can you explain why?
>   
As Vittorio wrote; "if the Chair doesn't satisfy everyone, people will 
stop to participate": which is dangerous for the less powerful groups, 
including civil society".

I don't always agree with Vittorio, but I've found him pretty pragmatic 
(thus I supported his nomination for WGIG) and sensible. I really wrote 
my support out because you wrote, "IGF has a purely advisory status and 
yet Vittorio is talking about the Plenary as if it were some hugely 
dangerous thiing."

Well, it's not just Vittorio, but I don't recall him equating it to 
jumping in front of a speeding bus, which I would consider a hugely 
dangerous thing. :-) I would say that it is a thing which requires 
caution. While yourself and others may see the plenary as benign, others 
do not. I've seen the WSIS CS Plenary go back and forth - I am on the 
list but have been quiet, reading the messages - and when I look at the 
long view, I see a lot of *competing* viewpoints instead of a lot of 
integration of vision. That is a dangerous thing, because wrong turns 
early on can lead to disastrous results, and from the perspective that 
Vittorio presented, that loses the base - because it means loss of 
participation. I stopped participating in the WSIS CS plenary the moment 
I thought I was wasting my time and could have no effect.

Frankly, a method of structure doesn't bother me too much - I don't care 
who does whatever, who flies around and eats expensive meals, or gets to 
meet Koffi Annan and gets to play 20 questions with him. That is not 
relevant. What is relevant is that whatever the structure, there must be 
a maintained method of communication involved. The structure itself 
should be superfluous. This is where I took on the PCT caucus, including 
Greves and Stallman, about how they were representing the 'community' 
without having discussion with the community. Lose the community, you 
lose everything. While I respect the people here, I respect the larger 
community that is supposed to be represented even more than all of you 
combined.

Start talking about how the community will interact with the plenary and 
the structure will define itself; the process in this case should define 
the product. We need the community. And to be successful, we need to 
deal with the community first. WSIS kept the world outside just as big 
business and government kept Civil Society outside. Remove the layer of 
politics, put in a participative democracy, and the weight behind the 
group will provide it's own pivot and leverage. Otherwise, it's like 
that Ernie and Bert skit where no matter how many ways Ernie rearranges 
the cookies, the sum remains the same.

That's my opinion, that's my central belief on this, and that's why I'm 
here.

-- 
Taran Rampersad
Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago
cnd at knowprose.com

Looking for contracts/work!
http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786

New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo