Angående ICM-cykeln Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 juni 2007

Till: Styrelsen
Från: ICM-delegationen/Lisa Moraeus
Datum: 2 juni 2007


Underlag angående ICM-cykeln

Bakgrund
ICM tog ställning till frågan om ICM bör anordnas vart tredje år istället för vartannat för första gången 2001, då arbetsgruppen Decision Making and Accountability Working Group (DAWG) föreslog detta i sin rapport. Den svenska sektionen föreslog samma sak i en resolution till ICM 2003.

Argumenten var att ICM är dyrt, att ge mer tid för rörelsen att genomföra och utvärdera ICM-beslut och att ICM-cykeln skulle vara mer i fas med Amnestys 6-åriga handlingsplan. Den svenska sektionen menade också att Chairs Forum skulle ge sektionerna mer inflytande och därför skulle demokratin inte undergrävas av att ICM-cykeln förändrades.

ICM 2001 och 2003 beslutade att inte övergå till en treårscykel.

Vid ICM 2005 föreslog IEC att ICM skulle övergå till en treårscykel. IEC hade nu sett över de strukturer som behövde förändras och menade att rörelsen nu var mogen att göra denna förändring. ICM 2005 beslutade att övergå till en treårscykel.

Nu vill IEC att ICM 2007 river upp detta beslut. De menar bland annat att ledarna för AI behöver träffas ofta för att få en gemensam grund att stå på, särskilt med världen och AI i förändring. De menar också att det kan bli svårt att välja styrelseledamöter som kan tänka sig omval om perioden är tre år.

Fråga att diskutera
Svenska sektionen har drivit den här frågan tidigare. Hur vill vi ställa oss den här gången och hur mycket kraft ska vi lägga på den här frågan?


Bifogas:
Resolution från IEC till ICM 2007 där man föreslår att ICM river upp beslutet från 2005 om att övergå till en 3-årscykel.

Accountability – IEC Statute Amendment ICM Cycle

The 2007 ICM:

Wishing not to move to a 3-Year ICM cycle, rescinds Decision 25 of the 2005 ICM and accordingly rescinds the amendments to the Statute in that decision.


Explanatory note

The 2001, 2003 and 2005 ICMs considered statute amendments to have ICMs 3 years apart rather than 2 years. The proposals were defeated in 2001 and 2003, but the 2005 ICM (Decision 25) agreed to introduce a 3-Year cycle commencing in 2009 (that is, we would have ICMs in 2009, 2012, 2015 and so on).

There have always been arguments for and against the change. The IEC proposed and supported the resolution leading to decision 25, recognizing that there was a “cooling off” period between 2005 and 2009 that would allow the implications of the decision to be reviewed.

The IEC and the Secretary General have since considered the impact of this decision very carefully, and are unanimous in recommending to the ICM and the movement that we continue with a 2-Year cycle for the foreseeable future.

These are our reasons.

One thing that makes AI special is that it requires the participation and involvement of members in leadership and in activism. It is part of AI’s identity that its political leadership is voluntary and elected, and that leadership and governance are grounded in rights and opportunities that extend to the whole of AI’s membership.

Leadership and governance in a world-wide organization of two million people requires leaders who are informed, who know each other, who are committed on the basis of information and understanding to the current directions of the movement, and who have their leadership grounded in the collective will of the movement.

We recognize the importance and unique role that meetings of the International Council have in AI’s leadership and governance. The ICM is the only forum that brings together nearly all the current leaders of AI. As a result it is possible to have the whole leadership group share the same knowledge and commitment; to reach a common mind on issues where there has been disagreement; to agree on priorities; to be part of leading AI as a whole and to be better equipped to lead the parts of AI for which they are immediately responsible. Only an ICM permits all of these things for the whole of AI’s leadership group.

The role of the ICM will become greater as it evolves . Under the leadership of PrepCom and the IEC, we are moving to a structure for the ICM which more closely matches its primary functions as set out in the Statute. These are: to focus on strategy; to set AI’s vision, mission and core values; to determine AI’s Integrated Strategic Plan including its financial strategy; to establish systems and bodies of governance and delegation for the movement, to elect members to those bodies, and to hold those bodies and their members accountable; to evaluate the movement’s performance against its agreed strategies and plans; and to hold sections, structures and other bodies accountable. In particular, while it will always remain important for ICMs to make decisions on strategic issues, future ICMs will be looking less at making decisions, and much more at reaching common understanding and agreement about how to respond to and address the external world, and at acquiring the knowledge and skills for effective leadership and governance.

The ICM is even more important in a period of change . The world is changing, and AI is necessarily and willingly changing with it—but change is hard work, and requires especially from the leaders shared vision and shared competencies. The leadership group needs to gather more often than every 3 years if it is to be effective at such a time. In fact, people could come into and leave leadership roles as Chairs and Vice-Chairs of sections without ever attending an ICM if they were 3 years apart.
Other “decision-making” bodies are not an adequate replacement for an ICM . There has been considerable investment in considering how to have decision-making bodies other than the IEC between ICM meetings—for example, in the Chairs Forum or in through some standing Board. Increasingly, however, we are recognizing that what AI needs is not more decisions, or more decision-makers, but more leadership and more opportunities for democratic involvement. We would actually identify two immediate challenges for AI: improving involvement and participation and improving the quality of decision-making (that is, making the right decisions for the right reasons and with the right information). In our view, proceeding now to create more decision-making bodies would not address either of these challenges.

A 3-Year cycle will put more strain on those in elected positions . The change envisages that those elected and appointed to offices (the IEC, Chair and Vice-Chair of the ICM, Membership Appeals Committee, Financial Control Committee and others) would be elected for three years. For volunteers this is a long period of time—indeed, 2 years is a long period for some. A 3 year cycle could reduce the number of people willing to make such a commitment. It means that those who have made a commitment that they can’t see through are left in a harder position. If there are resignations then we will inevitably leave ourselves with a less democratic process than one which has election at the ICM.
The loss of the advantages can be managed. Of course, we recognize some of the advantages that would have come from a move to a 3-year cycle. When these were last articulated (see ORG50/006/2003, resolution P3) the reasons put forward were:
Cost—the savings could fund a large number of other global meetings
The limited time in practice between ICMs in a two-year cycle for undertaking studies and reviews
With a six year ISP, it would make sense to plan for 3 years rather than 2.
The first of these concerns the best use of resources. It is true that ICMs are very expensive. The costs can be reduced (eg, by shorter meetings, and by using the same site a number of times), but they are still considerable. The question is whether an ICM is the best use of that money relative to the other ways of strengthening democratic leadership and building consensus and capacity. We consider that it is.
The second has always been a concern, and remains the best argument for a longer cycle. However, increasingly we have moved away from trying to fit everything into a two-year cycle. ICMs are part of how projects are undertaken, not static events outside other processes. In addition, experience suggests the only an ICM is authoritative in determining whether to continue with a project, change course, or abandon it altogether—and in that context, 3 years is a long time to wait!
The experience of working with the current ISP as a three stage process—preparation, sowing, reaping—has been a positive one.