[WSIS CS-Plenary] About the Internet governance caucus

[MJ Ray]

[eo resumo] Malfermaj grupoj estas pli ol videblaj grupoj. Helpo
pri agmetodoj kaj aktualaj agadoj estas dirinda. [/eo]

[fr resume'] Groupes ouverts sont plu de groupes visibles. Aide
au sujet de methodes d'action et actions actuels doit etre donne. [/fr]

Adam wrote:
> I made a very general statement in Plenary this morning saying that
> the Internet governance caucus is open (open list, open archives,
> open membership, open meetings.) We welcome all issues and have not,
> to the best of my knowledge, ever refused to listen to any person's
> opinion. We welcome contributions from anyone from civil society.

There is (or should be?) more to being an open caucus than merely
having open archives and meetings. I'd call that transparent
rather than open. I do not wish to suggest that the Internet
Governance (IG) caucus is the only one with problems, but I will
use it as an example because a member made the above statement.

A CS actor who wants to get involved with IG caucus may visit
the web site http://www.wsis-cs.org/ and follow the link marked
"Civil Society Caucuses and Working groups and how to get
involved." This leads to a page of mailing list links (with no
info on how to get involved, as far as I noticed). Following
the IG mailing list link leads to an archive. Picking a couple
of months suggests nothing which obviously gives a summary
of the work currently underway, not a statement of anyone
coordinating. Following the link for "More info on this list"
brings a normal mailman listinfo page, which only links to
the archives.

At the end of that journey, I still do not really know what
the IG caucus is or how to get involved with it. Using generic
search engines, I found the web site at http://www.net-gov.org/
and that doesn't give any advice on getting involved either.
After the criticism of the WGIG selection method, I'm surprised
this hasn't drawn attention.

Looking at random other caucuses, most have more description of
their actions, but are often out-of-date or have very little
advice about how they (wish to) act. I don't remember most
making any statements to the virtual plenary list, which seems
essential for greater transparency.

Are caucuses sure that they are open? Check and act, please.

-- 
Best wishes,

MJR/slef
http://www.affs.org.uk/~mjr/