[WSIS CS-Plenary] Participations to the Summit by individuals (was Re: from IHT...)

[Avri Doria]

On 1 okt 2005, at 19.36, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Also, my written contributions for this last PrepCom were rejected  
> as well, apparently because, as an individual, I have no right to  
> submit contributions to the PrepCom (however I did not even receive  
> a formal reply, and I could only ascertain this through informal  
> channels). It is something that, as an individual used at  
> participating in global Internet policy processes in an individual  
> capacity, I find extremely frustrating.

I have been think about this a lot lately and have been wondering how  
to express my views on it.  Since the Forum has become a real  
possibility and we need to start thinking about how CS will be  
organized for participation, I think this is an issue we need to try  
and reach some rough consensus on.

And since I am in work avoidance mode on something else I should be  
doing, I figured now is as good a time as any to contribute some of  
my thoughts to the issue.

I definitely support the view that individuals must have a voice in  
the process.  As a long time participant in the IETF, I consider the  
ability to participate in something where my employer (when i have  
one) is somewhat proscribed from limiting my voice a blessing.

But i have trouble understanding how, as participants in this global  
process the many voices of individuals could be included in a  
manageable way.  To require the process to allow everyone to input  
their opinion directly could eventually lead to thousand of  
statements and requests to speak - the volume would tend to make all  
of our voices disappear into an unmanageable mass that was easy to  
ignore.  Scaling in such a process seems to require that there be  
ways to combine our voices into the aggregate voice of affinity  
groups of like minded individuals.

I agree that needing an accredited associations endorsement, the  
current aggregation technique, in order to participate is too onerous  
a process for many.  My solution was to request that the university I  
am affiliated with become accredited, but this is not possible for  
everyone.

I am wondering whether an intermediate way can be found.  Is it  
reasonable or possible for groups such as those who consider  
themselves netizens, the technologists who create the FOSS that is  
critical to the innovation of the network, and other affinity groups  
of a similar sort, to form themselves into structures that can  
sponsor participants. Just as the IETF existed for a long time  
without any formal organizational anchoring (e.g. the IETF was not an  
NGO or incorporated in any way, yet it functioned as a mechanism for  
producing a rough consensus for many individuals) yet was able to  
make the collective voice of a group of somewhat like minded  
individuals heard in the community. So we could have structures like  
the Netizen's Action Committee or the Association of FOSS  
Contributors set themselves up within the context of Civil society  
and have those groupings 'accredited' by the system and able to  
register participants.  It would certainly take a concerted effort on  
the part of civil society to get accreditation for those affinity  
groups, but it might be worth the effort, especially if it made it  
possible for the myriad of voices who are not currently represented  
to be included in a manageable way.

To try and make the suggestion a little more explicit, I am not  
suggesting that these new affinity groups (AG?) form them outside of  
the the process by incorporation.  I am rather suggesting that like  
caucuses or families they become a part of the civil society  
community within the process.  Participation in one of these AGs  
would be sufficient for a person to gain access to the process and  
would serve as a vehicle for getting ones voice included in the  
discussions.  I would suggest that it should be enough for the AGs to  
have some self determined structure in line with the civil society  
guidelines for other civil society entities.  the way in which they  
differed from caucuses and families is that they would count as  
affiliated entities for the purposes of speaking and for quorum etc  
in civil society processes.


Note: some who have read my email on netizens in the past may wonder  
if i have come to accept the term.  for myself i don't even though i  
might fit the definition used, but if there are enough people who who  
see themselves as netizens and are happy calling themselves netizens,  
who am i to say they don't exist.  just because i don't really  
understand how they differ from the rest of us, if they have a  
collective view of what makes them an affinity group they should be  
able to participate in the process using the defining term for  
themselves that they find most appropriate.  I think this is an  
important point.  If a group of people defines themselves as an AG,  
and can describe that affinity in language they have rough consensus  
on, that should be good enough.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't  
think any of us is alone, we all belong to many affinity groups of  
one sort or another.  We just need to find the affinity group we are  
most comfortable being known as a participant of.

i hope this makes some sort of sense.

thanks

a.