[governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Tue Mar 19 02:15:04 EDT 2013
A workshop would be good - if the current extremely divisive feelings are ironed out beforehand and we start to look at a way forward.
It'd erupt into an ugly fight indeed, either in the panel or on the floor, given by previous list traffic, if we are not careful.
--srs (iPad)
On 19-Mar-2013, at 11:05, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> I fully support the third proposal.
>>
>> For the first one, we need to be clear on scope. Net neutrality is too
>> vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of
>> evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc. It has also got
>> itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that
>> includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and
>> deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture.
>>
>> As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this
>> thread.
>
> Hi,
>
> I disagree. Workshop, as Anriette proposed, working with Business and
> Tech/Academic would be good.
>
> On the other two topcis: would be good to see text proposed and
> discussed so the coordinators can announce the text 48hours before the
> deadline and decide if there's consensus or not.
>
> Hope other proposals will also be made.
>
> On issue of work of the caucus. We are again up against a deadline
> and only now beginning to discuss issues that will to some extent
> shape the caucus' involvement on the IGF for the rest of the year.
>
> Which is one reason we need coordinators to coordinate and not get
> stuck in the weeds of our disagreements. They need to be reminding us
> of deadlines, facilitating discussion.
>
> The submission made to the consultation last month was very poor:
> contradictory, not in anyway a consensus document, did not follow the
> processes in the charter.
>
> It's bad process to force issues through at the last minute.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>> I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is
>> well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the
>> multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a
>> workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards
>> development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than
>> attempts to interpret past writings.
>>
>>
>> Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals?
>>
>>
>> Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have asked
>> for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere else for
>> it.
>>
>> I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals
>>
>> One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our
>> submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the
>> 'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal without
>> much ado.
>>
>> Second should be a workshop on 'Modalities for selection of (non gov)
>> stakeholder representatives for public bodies' .
>>
>> Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was was
>> proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider of the
>> Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the wordings
>> used but it was the key WCIT issue of 'how traditional telecom regulations,
>> and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or dont apply to the Internet'
>> . Having witnesses the turmoil of and around WCIT, there could be few more
>> pertinent policy related questions than this one. So, well I propose we have
>> a workshop on this question.
>>
>> Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting workshops
>> proposals is online now at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals
>>
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection
>> of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
>>
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive.
>>
>> Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be
>> tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before)
>> and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe
>> that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results
>> whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill
>> proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental
>> SGs about how to improve processes.
>>
>> My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to
>> complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work.
>>
>> And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a
>> workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try
>> and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov
>> stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We
>> could also discuss the categorisation of these
>> constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA
>> community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly
>> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like
>> dropping involvement on this issue altogether.
>>
>> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and
>> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and
>> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not
>> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for
>> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others
>> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining
>> letter to anyone.
>>
>> Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think
>> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our
>> objectives here.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake
>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder
>> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on
>> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
>>
>> Hi Parminder
>>
>> snipping...
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the
>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just
>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense
>>
>>
>> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of
>> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very
>> logical to put them together.
>>
>>
>> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with
>> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just
>> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency
>> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial
>> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's
>> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective
>> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the
>> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't
>> like it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to
>> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics
>> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary
>> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see
>> themselves that way and feel they are CS.
>>
>> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that
>> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group.
>> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and
>> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS
>> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't
>> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we
>> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the
>> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS
>> people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some
>> settings, but that's another conversation.
>>
>> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the
>> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector.
>> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves?
>>
>>
>> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good
>> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when
>> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies
>> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in
>> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write
>> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's
>> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance,
>> it'd be better coming from within the TC than from us. Of course,
>> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal
>> remains valid.
>>
>>
>> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and
>> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to
>> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role
>> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to
>> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic.
>>
>>
>> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but
>> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the
>> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to
>> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we
>> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth
>> it could be worth a try.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list