[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: There's a problem

[Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE]

Dear Hervé,

Thanks for raising the question about Jonathan Cave - I do 
not object at all, quite on the contrary. This is very good 
for transparency and accountability and allows to clarify a 
few points.  

Françis gave some elements of reply and I think Jonathan 
Cave himself will also make some precisions. 

But I take this opportunity to make three comments : 1) on 
connectors, 2) on Johathan Cave's affiliation and think 
tanks, and 3) on the difference between this process and 
traditional election mechanisms. This mail ended up being 
much longer than I thought, but I hope you and others will 
accept to spend the time to read it :-)

1) On Connectors

I did not have the opportunity to explain in more detail the 
notion of connectors. This is a good time to do it.

The creation of the WGIG is a catch 22 : the WGIG should be 
formed of people knowledgeable in the issues it will 
address; but, at the same time, it will be the very people 
forming the WGIG that will decide which issues the WGIG 
should address ! this is circular; a somewhat recursive and 
self-referring process. 

The long and intense debate launched by Richard Stallman on 
the PCT list about the opportunity for the WGIG to 
address "intellectual property" issues was exemplary in that 
regard. His take was : I do not want it to address those 
issues because they will be framed in the wrong way; hence I 
probably do not want to be part of it, because otherwise, it 
would signal that "IP" (or "PCT" as he prefers) is on the 
agenda. But would it not be worse if he were not 
volunteering and the WGIG did address "IP" issues without 
anybody opposing the move ? Catch 22 again. 

So our idea was : start with a core definition and 
anticipate the extension of the agenda. Whatever the debate 
about the definition of Internet Governance and its scope 
(restrictive or broad), it is obvious the initial thrust for 
the creation of this working group was the DNS and ICANN 
issue.

Accordingly, the natural first step is to designate 
candidates for the Working Group that are more connected 
with this restrictive dimension - that everybody agrees 
shold be addressed. But, anticipating at the same time that 
the agenda is going to broaden, we decided to create a list 
of thematic outreach connectors that will come into play in 
two respects :
- guaranteeing that anything done within the WGIG that is of 
interest or relevance to their own caucuses will be known, 
transmitted to the respective lists and treated for feedback
- being ready to help identify actors who may join the WGIG 
core group or participate in the consultations organized 
around issues belonging to the broader agenda.

In that context, those connectors are not, per se, 
additional candidates to be included in the working Group 
itself (they may be but it is not obligatory).  they are the 
focal and contact points that can help mobilize civil 
society in an efficient way : preventing thematic caucus 
members from loosing time in meetings only marginally 
addressing issues they are interested in; but at the same 
time not being out of the information loop and missing 
important occasions to push their ideas forward.

It is the responsibility of each thematic caucus to 
designate its connectors and they can change over time. 

This description is only tentative and this notion is likely 
to evolve as the process moves forward. 

2) On Jonathan Cave's affiliation with RAND Europe

Yours is a perfectly legitimate concern.

A few points though, beyond what Françis has already 
mentionned and what Jonathan himself may add. 

There is a category within the CS families called "think 
tanks" and it is even represented in the CS bureau as such. 

I agree the term think tank can cover many different types 
of entities. Furthermore, there is indeed a difference 
between the work of think tanks and advocacy groups, as 
there are differences between strong policy advocacy groups 
and many NGOs that develop community activities at the 
grassroots level on non controversial issues.

The diversity of civil society is one of its strengths. 
corresponding raback is defining its frontiers is a 
difficult task : I am not sure the boundaries are - or can 
ever be - perfectly clear.

Still, there is one criteria I personnaly keep in mind : the 
difference between the defense of a group's specific 
interests and the search for the common good or the more 
general interest. 

There is nothing bad in the defense of group's interests : 
many are very legitimate, particularly when their objectives 
are transparent.

But in a policy environment like the one we are in, I tend 
to favor actors who are trying to push for a collective 
interest beyond the particular concerns of their members. 

To take an extreme exemple, gender balance is not a fight 
for women alone. It is not about a sub-group defending its 
rights agains another sub-group (males) defending theirs. It 
is about a deep belief that the involvement of women 
(however difficult it is to achieve sometimes) is beneficial 
to all, because it provides, precisely, a more balanced 
vision of the world than the testosterone-driven, purely 
competition-minded one we are presently living in. 

To come back to Jonathan and think tanks : Think Tanks are 
institutions that get their independence from the diversity 
of their sources and that often includes, yes, corporations; 
as many universities do as well.

The important distinction therefore is beetween lobbying 
groups maskerading as think tanks (particularly in the US to 
circumvent some legal dispositions trying to constraint 
lobbying) and independent entities getting no-strings 
attached financing, potentially from corporations. 

In the present case : 
- Rand Europe is different from RAND US (itself somewhat 
different from what the former RAND was in the Vietnam years)
- Jonathan Cave is not representing RAND but works with them 
on certain projects; his affiliation being more University 
of Warwick and Club of Rome
- last but not least, Johathan Cave was not a nominee for 
the core group at that stage, but the connector (see above) 
designated by the cientific Information Caucus.     

In the end, it is about the personal work of the individual. 
The key question here being : is he or not a "faux nez" for 
some private corporation interests or is he genuinely 
conducting reserach with the goal of the general interest ?

Françis assures us this is true. Further check and 
monitoring is always possible. 

3) On the difference between this process and traditional 
representative democracy elections

Hervé, your being able to raise this problem illustrates one 
key feature that probably distinguishes normal election 
processes from the kind of nomination we are attempting 
here. Let me explain.

In a traditional election process, the WSIS Civil society 
Caucus on Scientific information (as all others) would 
elect - through its own procedures - a "delegate", or 
a "representative" to a "highr body", in that case the slate 
for the WGIG or even the WGIG itself. And nobody else would 
or should have a say in this process, even if they believe 
this person is completely inappropriate. In that sort of 
framework, if you are not a member of the Scintific 
information Caucus, you have no right to raise a concern 
about the person it designates.

In the WGIG formation process, this is not appropriate. You, 
as any member of the plenary have the right to challenge the 
designation of one member of the slate if you feel he/she is 
inappropriate. Why ? because the final slate should be 
acceptable to all CS.

If I can take an analogy, it is a little as if, after the 
american election, the rest of the worlld were able to say 
whether this new president is acceptable or not, given the 
influence he will have on everybody's life. This would not 
mean having the american president elected by the whole 
wolrd; but this would mean having a voice on something that 
probably has more influence on our lifes than most of the 
national elections we all participate in.


Conclusion and next steps 

Of course, we are just exploring here and 
discovering/drafting the rules as we move forward. 

I wish we (the NomCom) had moved faster, established the 
slate earlier and circulated it for final checking. But we 
got caught in time. 

This was a first experiment in trying to produce an 
acceptable slate for all, starting from a bottom-up call and 
testing mechanisms for selection along the way. 

We can do better. In particular, in addressing Enrique's 
remark on potential conflicts of interest, for which I have 
no definitive answer so far. 

Now the main quetion is : how is the WGIG itself going to be 
formed ? what kind of influence can Civil Society have on 
the final composition.

One element in particular is whether the submissions from 
govenements and the private sector will be made public, as 
civil society has done ?

The game is just begining.

I hope this long reply at least shows how much I care about 
your concern, and hopefully will have alleviated part of it.

- I apologize for not even trying to translate it in french -

Best

Bertrand


Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE
Director
wsis-online.net
lachapelle at openwsis.org
tel : 33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

About wsis-online.net
wsis-online.net is the community platform for all actors willing to implement the WSIS Action Plan. It offers a calendar of WSIS-related events, promotes people, organizations and projects and offers online consultations, all of them indexed along a list of Summit Themes. use it to promote your own activities at : www.wsis-online.net