[WSIS CS-Plenary] UN Official Document System is online

[Vittorio Bertola]

(collapsing two messages into one)

Georg C. F. Greve ha scritto:
> Decisions are generally reached by consensus, not simple majority.

This requires the assumption that, in the end, there will always be a 
consensus. The problem is that this is simply false - for example, here we 
don't have any consensus between some people from the PCT Caucus and some 
other from the IG Caucus about the choice of WGIG nominees. In these 
cases, you need a measurable and objective way of taking decisions.

In the absence of this, what happens is that those who directly manage the 
process have the opportunity/responsibility to decide for all, which may 
work in small cohesive groups, but not in a bigger and more diverse 
environment, as civil society has become here (and in this regard I feel 
that things have changed a lot since the first PrepComs in Phase I).

Also, I think we will find it increasingly hard to call for more power and 
weight to be given to civil society in international policy processes, if 
we can't come up with a solid and accountable structure.

> A very good reason for this is that secure and reliable voting is not
> possible online and may indeed never be possible if one follows the
> scientific discussion happening in this area. With the machines that
> people find acceptable today, there always has to be a paper trail.

True, but there are methods who allow for reasonably secure and reasonably 
reliable online voting, fit to the purpose of internal voting among a few 
hundred people.

> That seems to coincide with the strategy of Mr. Kummer, who also
> deliberately removed the thematic area of PCTs from the UN WGIG when
> it was set up, although it was found on the list of issues earlier.

Uhm... I can tell you that PCT is still on the list, otherwise I wouldn't 
be working on a draft right now.

If I'm not wrong, the idea of "connectors" was introduced especially 
because there was not enough room to let all CS groups be represented 
directly in the WGIG, so there should be people officially tasked with 
keeping communications.

Now, the confidentiality rules of WGIG allow non-members to comment on 
issue papers only in a second phase (mark your calendars, that's possibly 
going to be from Jan 31 to Feb 14). But as long as it's my personal draft, 
nothing prevents me from sharing it with whomever I like, so I'd like to 
circulate it among civil society people once it's ready.

> I ask all Civil Society representatives to please try to make sure
> that the others players at the table will also not extend the scope
> without having Civil Society representatives for these issues present.

Please beware that the supporters of the "narrow scope" approach usually 
imply that everything with the Internet works fine, except the 
administration of the DNS, that should be given to the ITU and to 
governments only. I'm sure that this is not what you mean :-)

[CS structures, speaker selection etc]
> Whatever you may be discussing in the Working Methods WG should be
> presented to the plenary and will be reviewed here with the potential
> result that it will have to be redone. Involving the plenary to some
> amount therefore seems to be quite advisable.

See? There's no consensus on this, or at least, we have no idea about who 
should decide whether defining the process for speaker selection is a 
prerogative of the plenary, or of this working group (some of these 
questions where actually forwarded to the working group by the Bureau). 
And if the WG submits a proposal to the Plenary, how can the Plenary 
approve it? By raising hands in Geneva? (and what about those who can't be 
there?) Or by consensus on the list? And who decides whether there is 
consensus?

So I fear that we will waste a lot of time questioning whether we followed 
the right process. Exactly as you do for what concerns WGIG. Or we will 
have to redo things two or three times. Or have the same discussions again 
and again.

That's why I think that we have to build something more solid and better 
defined in terms of processes and responsibilities.
-- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...