Chapter 9

Proposal Making

Introduction

The second stage is called proposal making in which participants contributed to a wide range of ideas and made a large number of inputs. In this stage, participants first presented their proposals, followed by the dynamic behaviors of proposing, receiving responses, criticizing, and deliberating, all of which exemplify what Adler (1997) and Kingdon (1995) referred to as constructing or specifying alternatives. This stage is crucial because the numerous responses ease the process of shaping constructive proposals in an attempt to find a solution. At any point in time, many people presented several options or alternatives. Then, participants discussed and deliberated on the ideas and suggestions at length. Similar to the problem identification stage, there were also times where ideas or proposals received no response or minimal response, whereas others received a very contentious response or highly supportive comments. Again, the responses depended largely on the types of proposals or ideas that were generated, whether it was acceptable or nonacceptable, or viable or nonviable, to follow through by the participants.

Figure 9.1 Proposal-making activities in WSIS Geneva.

The findings (see Figure 9.1) show that proposal-making activities were concentrated in July (n = 89), October (n = 85), and November (n = 172). The overall trend was similar to problem identification activities, but, this time, in December, the activity showed a decrease of more than 50% from the previous month.

The proposal-making activities arose from the problems discussed or agenda set in the plenary listserv. When the participants began to respond to the problems or agenda, they often presented ideas in the form of a proposal. The following are the examples of the many proposals that were made, as well as the responses that were received, in light of the two crucial agendas:

Proposal-Making Behaviors

High-context participants began their proposals with a formal tone through the initial greetings and salutation, followed by a remark, which puts the statement in a context. For example, in responding to a drafted document, Rick Weissmen regretfully voiced his late response, only then suggesting a few things to be changed. It took 17 words before he stated, “I suggest…” He also justified the need for the changes in his closing statement.

May be I just too late.

About the non-paper of the president of the PrepCom

I suggest the following re-structuring, the articles numbers

I refer to are the one of this text:

1.  Article 2 (Our challenge…) should be in part B and moved between 15 and 16, so become the first of Part B.

2.  Point 8 (Cultural [identity] and diversity,….) and the articles 49, 50 and 51 have their place, eventually after being rewritten, in Part A between the actual articles 5 and 6.

3.  Point 10 (Ethical dimension…..) should also be moved to, eventually after being rewritten, to point A. (Our Vision…) between articles 6 and 7.

4.  Article 3 is a standard expression not really related to WSIS.

I realize by looking into more detail of the text, that some additional redactional work remains to be done!

Cordially, Rick Weissmen

Rick sent another email right after that, and his style was still consistent. He maintained his subtle way of making suggestions and giving justification. In fact, in this email, he sounded more apologetic for the changes that he made and hoped that they would be considered.

Dear all,

In a previous mail I suggested some re-arrangements of the articles.

In the attachment I did some re-shuffling, the changes are in red.

However, I realize now that this is not enough. One should first work on a ‘content’ structure and then write texts around it.

But it is perhaps too late, and the effort is considerable.

Cordially,

Rick Weissmen

Aside from the usual pattern of expressing gratitude early in the message, high-context participants also used an individual voice. But the individuality was not as strongly felt because it was made in reference to others. In that sense, it sounded more like a collective voice; for example, “But for the part Allan pointed out, I share the same concern” or “I share Vince’s opinion too.” They also often used the pronouns I and we jointly in the same sentence (such as in the third paragraph as follows). Although Isuzuki seemed to establish a position by using the pronoun I, his statement was not assertive since he cushioned his views with words of uncertainty such as “I am afraid,” “I guess,” and “I hope…” The message from Isuzuki illustrates typical high-context behavior with lengthy explanations [emphasis added]:

Benjamin and all, I appreciate your hard work and good result.

But for the part Allan pointed out, I share the same concern.

I have been involved with ICANN since the very beginning, and mostly around “At Large” issues, and am still engaged as the interim member of the AtLarge Advisory Committee.

I agree that the current ICANN framework is far from the best solution and especially the civil society/individual user participation has been not fully accepted as we wanted to be.

Yet the current draft for Declaration and Action Plans prepared by WISI secretariat are quite dangerous in that it may lead stronger government intervention, or control under the “intergovernmental” body if adopted.

So the current language of the civil society document may further invite this government involvement in the way, under the name of “public interest” and all stakeholders, that further marginalize the civil society participation, I am afraid.

That is the point Allan is trying to explain, I guess. And I share Vince’s opinion, too.

I hope you could consider this and will delete that para.

ICANN is certainly not perfect at all, but the government camps trying to change the current framework is much much worse.

Please remember that many innovations and freedom enjoyed around Internet have so far been made possible thanks to no government regulation/intervention.

IETF, ICANN, W3C et all are all part of this new ways of managing the Net.

Even though they did not have “enough” civil society participation, the Internet Community did much better job than government/industry-led standardizing body such as ITU.

Isuzuki

In Violet’s message (as follows), she slowly introduced the subject matter before she expressed her disagreement. Again, it took almost 44 words before she apologetically expressed her ideas and views. The tone of the message became more intense in the third paragraph, as shown by her using capital letters (underlining added) to make sure that people understand her point. Toward the end of her message, she reiterated the point but with reference to Wutz’s idea. This strategy softens her assertiveness because her individual voice was made in reference to someone else’s.

Dear Steven,

CS has spent a great amount of energy discussing and rediscussing its structure. In Paris, CS managed to get a substantial amount of work done, and this at all three levels: the CS Plenary, the CS Contents and Themes Group and the CS Bureau.

I am sorry but I do not see why we need to discuss the structure of CS again, coming back to issues that have previously already been clarified. I do fully agree with you that transparency is very important, but I believe the current system, where the CS Contents and Themes Group, as well as the CS Bureau report back to the CS Plenary works just fine.

This is why I do NOT see the need for a new task force.

As pointed out by Wutz, the structure is as follows:

1.  There is a “Civil Society Plenary” (CS-P), open to everybody, which is, as the name says, the main body of civil society, also for general decisions making.

2.  There is a “Civil Society Content and Themes Group” (CS-CTG), which coordinates the work of the numerous caucuses and content groups. The CS-CTG is the main body for decisions on content related issues (by respecting, that the expertise and competence is in the caucuses and content working groups).

3.  There is a “Civil Society Bureau” (CS-B), which functions as an interlinkage between CS and the intergovernmental Bureau for procedural and technical issues only.

Regards,

Violet

Proposal-making strategies are definitely different between low- and high-context participants. Low-context participants prefer to make proposals with a direct approach, such as in Anita Johnson’s message, “Would like to suggest too that we consider what we envision is Civil Society’s role in the design….” Several variations of this appeared in the emails in terms of the manner and approaches by which low-context participants established their positions and reacted to and deliberated on the proposals. They normally began the message with a goal statement or an assertion such as “I have some remarks on this text,” or “To have at least wireless access is a must, so I hope that the Secretariat will organize it. Otherwise, why bring notebooks at all? please, do something,” or “the point is here that the understanding of ICANN has changed over the years.” They did not waste their time in providing a context. They emphasized the articulated goals of what they wanted to propose. Hence, their proposals and responses were usually very specific yet concise and, at other times, lengthy and detailed with clear purposes. For example, Allan voiced his opinion clearly such as, “The paragraph should be deleted. ICANN is far from perfect. Its policy making structures are not as open as we would like…”

Additionally, there was evidence of divergent ways of throwing questions in the email between high and low context. Low-context people question with a more aggressive tone, whereas high-context people’s questioning strategy focuses more on seeking for approval or concealing their real intentions. In the following excerpt from James, he responded to a proposal by aggressively illustrating his individuality and made clear that he was not supportive of the proposal regarding “multiple root servers.”

Dear Albert,

I agree with your email below—phrases like “multiple root servers,” “strict international regulation” a extreme for me. By now, Benjamin has sent out the final document. Have you seen it? Will—endorse it? This document is a recommendation to the governments on what should be included in the Plan of Action and Declaration. Has there been any talk about a civil society document? You know that if the governments cannot get their act together, civil society could come through by producing their own declaration and/or plan of action, which may even have the ability to acquire individual government endorsements. Not sure where this idea is in the pipeline? Perhaps talk for after Paris—PrepCom3. James

It was evident that when low-context participants made proposals, the suggestions were based on an individual opinion, and they oftentimes requested that an action be taken, which demonstrated their tendency to be task oriented.

Hi to the C&T Group and Plenary Groups

The following are some ideas floating around the Bureau.

I think there should be joint discussions on this and other questions of common concern, so I am circulating to these lists (there are no contentious personal views, I hope). It concerns guidelines for the allocation of speaker slots at the PrepComs etc. There is a proposal from Vince Markow (at the bottom), followed by a comment from James, then myself (with comments from Vince in there).

But I also think it raises the issue of communication between the Bureau, the C&T Group and the Plenary Group, and how we make decisions that affect us all. And the role of the Plenary, in terms of consulting and approving. Perhaps the C&T Groups would have proposals to put forward? And the Plenary?

Steven

The low-context people responded to proposals using a straight-out approach, with much less effort on obscuring their emotions. They would also assert their individual views—sometimes with tactfulness, but many times with aggressiveness. For example, when Wutz claimed his authority, he did it with a slight tone of compromise (see the underlined portion of the message),

I (wutz) am the main responsible person for the final language of the governance paragraph. I tried to bring all discussed positions on a extrem complex issue into some simple key points. This simplification opens unfortunately the door for misinterpretation. The points you have raised are not in contradiction with the proposed language and I see no basic problem, to harmonize the two approaches (see my comments below).

But later, in his message, he began to apply a more aggressive tone by using capital letters to make his point.

The proposed paragraph does NOT say that the rules should be different from “common rule of law.” In contrary, it says that CS should be in favour of “the common rules of law” for the cyberspace. And even more, in cases, where new or revised or enlarged rules are needed (eCommerce, IPR, InfoSec/Privacy etc.), citizens should be involved directly in the policy development and the rule making.

Another example is a message from Vince that straightforwardly asserts his individual view but is not as harshly presented (“it’s not the best but…”).

this is my personal opinion.

it’s not the best, but

a.  there is no better created (and hence the governments will take immediate control)

b.  if there is no ICANN, for sure the control over domain and numbers will not by a miracle go to the Civil Society or the privacy groups, or the scientists; it will go to the governments. And there isn’t anything worse than that as of today.

Vince

A fourth example, from Rolf, is more honestly and bluntly expressed. Some might interpret it as rude or offensive, particularly high-context participants who seldom use such direct words as those underlined as follows. As a result, a message like this might intimidate them into not making a counterresponse.

Hi all,

I totally agree with Steven’s five points.

Not in the sense of “I like his ideas” but as “That’s how it is. Period.”

Of course_there is such a thing as the CS plenary which was accepted by a great majority as the final decision making body of CS activities.

> I am seeking support for the above five points from those on this list as I believe we cannot be continually reinventing the past and must move forward. Yes to this also.

I don’t understand how these things can come up not even a week after Paris. And I hope we can really move forward and get rid of this discussion soon. I’d rather discuss what we could do better instead of clarifying what has been.

Best, Rolf

Aside from being succinct and concise when proposing or suggesting ideas, low-context people were also capable of sending lengthy messages that detailed their emotions (i.e., anger, frustrations, or disappointments) when they reacted to the proposals that were made by others. They first stated clearly what and how they felt and then provided the context and justification for their feelings or beliefs. This contrasts with high-context participants who first provided the context, with their intentions buried later in the email. In essence, low-context behavior exhibited clear goals, whereas high-context behavior buried their goals.

Dear Mr. Verner Vinson,

I do not speak on matters of substance as the “Focal Point” of the “Media Family.” Any suggestion that I did so is inaccurate.

I am also chairman of the Media Caucus, made up of the journalistic organizations attending its meetings and open to all interested related groups attending the Prepcoms and the intersession meeting. Anything I might possibly have reported as being an opinion of the Caucus would have reflected the overwhelming opinion of those taking part in its meetings.

That does not mean that I have given up the right to hold and express my own views, which, I think, are clearly understood as such, when I speak I on my own name.

As for community media, which I highly favor, I assume them to be as diverse and pluralistic as any other media. I rather doubt that they could all or mostly fit your description of their characteristics—unless you mean to say that local media that don’t fit that description could not, by definition, be community media, properly so-called. If that were so, it would raise a number of rather intriguing questions. But I am confident in doubting that to be your meaning.

Incidentally, my first paid journalism job nearly 50 years ago was as a jack-of-all-trades at a community weekly newspaper in southern Ohio. It gave me experience as a reporter, editorialist, classified ad taker, proof reader, linotypist and operator of a mid-19th Century flatbed press. So I am an old community newspaperman myself.

In fact, our publisher/editor was a member of the American Socialist Party and his No. 2 was a Quaker and conscientious objector (which I also was at the time), but the newspaper served the whole community and did not attempt to sell an “agenda” based on the views of the staff leaders, even if the editorials—strictly separated from the news—did reflect their sensitivities. The paper won numerous awards as a model community newspaper in the Middle Western region.

The expression “something called community media” was simply meant to convey the idea that there are other possible definitions of what constitutes community written and broadcast press than the cause-oriented one(s) I have encountered in the Civil Society discussions surrounding the WSIS. Best regards,

Rolan Kiefer

Low-context participants did not hesitate to reveal their personal views, as well as to state with whom they disagreed. Oftentimes, this may be interpreted as an insensitive approach, but low-context people are expressive and true to their intentions. They are willing to self-disclose what they feel rather than hiding it, unlike high-context participants who are more hesitant and careful with self-disclosure. For example, Verner (as follows) states that he was not comfortable with Steven’s proposal. The tone of the email is quite forceful. Even though he did compliment Steven’s proposal, he directly addressed several other people—Samuel, Wutz, and the Bureau—without concealing his opinions about them. And he ended his email with another forceful question. This is a very different approach from that of a high-context member who would respond just the opposite: providing complimentary statements and/or gratitude, and only then disagreeing, and closing with some polite gestures.

The problem with the proposal of Steven, which at first sight I applauded because of his positive and constructive approach, is a logical one: who decides and with which representativity who are composing and which competences will have this Task Force? who will give legitimacy to its decisions?

In other words, whatever excelent proposal would result from this Task Force, it will allways be very relative. “Civil Society” is in the first place-still-more a (sociological, political, ideological) concept, then a organizative well defined structure. From this point of view, the concept will be permanently open to multiple interpretations, from a huge variety of legitimate interests. That is at the same time it’s force, because everybody has the absolute right to participate.

I agree to maintain Wutz resume as good starting points, because it reinforces this last idea (absolute right to participate) and builds upon the advances made.

I would like to ask the members of the Buro to submit themselves to the practices constructed in this Summit Process. Otherwise they’ll loose legitimacy.

Verner

P.D. On the Latin American List came up an interesting question: who named the members of the Buro?

Another important characteristic of low-context responses is that, although, generally, their emails are direct and concise, they also exemplify some sense of professionalism and objectivity. The characteristic quality of their responses is that the intention and purpose of the email are clearly stated. For example, Rolf began his email with a friendly note, briefly reflecting his personal view, and then straight away, in one sentence (bolded as follows), clearly stated the goal of his response.

Hi all,

It was good to see many of you in Paris, and I think in the end we can be quite satisfied with what we did. Of course, as usual we could do better, especially with more coordination of our activities, a bit more transparency and better pooling of ressources.

This is an attempt to kick off a discussion on CS coordination at PrepCom 3, which will also help for the same task at the summit itself.

By this I mean the “inside” activities like monitoring, lobbying, content and themes drafting, press work etc. The “outside” and “half in, half out” activities like the Polymedia Lab or the World Forum on Communication Rights are already being organized in other spaces.

It is not about content, but about how to structure all our work in order to be more effective and keep everybody better informed on what is going on. This should help us enable better and more equal participation of the whole civil society (on location and elsewhere), make better use of our ressources, and in the end have a bigger impact on the summit outcomes.

We should prepare well in advance, that is why I suggest to start this discussion now. There are already some deadlines, e.g. Linda from the CS secretariat at ITU wants to have a list of what we need from them at PrepCom3 by this week. And the impressions from Paris are still fresh, so we can better think of what went well and what could be improved.

*** Where to discuss this?

In order to not generate another “Spam” problem on this plenary list, I suggest that we set up another list, [email protected], and discuss the details there. Kathryn: Can you do this? (BTW: Kathryn and others did a great job coordinating in Paris!)

I am looking forward to see your ideas and enthusiasm in helping to get this going.

All the best,

Rolf

Findings showed that the proposals that received favorable responses came from both cultural orientations. For example, on the low-context end of the spectrum, Steven’s proposals were often clear, direct, and detailed, and, as a result, succeeded in generating numerous positive responses. So did Wutz, Vince, and Rolf when they stated their positions in aggressive proposals. As long as the arguments were sensible, valid, and logical, people seemed to react and respond positively. On the other end of the spectrum, Mariette’s lengthy high-context messages that explained her position in a very tactful manner also received favorable responses. Her style was convincing as she used more persuasive tactics. On a similar vein, Rince would often produce a friendly yet convincing message when he proposed something. His name was, in fact, mentioned and referred to many times in the listserv, which points out how influential he is. In essence, much like the problem identification stage, the proposal stage not only required substantive or quality messages, but the manner in which the message was presented also makes a difference.

References

Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

Kingdon, J.W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.