<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Dear all,</span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>+1 for the Workshop. My initial thoughts:</span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>Objectives</span></div><ol><li><span>Highlight lessons learned in MSism</span></li><li><span>Explore what has worked in
transparency, openness and inclusion</span></li><li><span>Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder representation</span></li><li><span>Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward</span></li><li><span>Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate <br></span></li><li><span>Contribute a working document to the CSTD.</span></li></ol><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;">Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming together of discussions already held within the non-gov stakeholder groups. And drafting can take place.</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family:
verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;">Best regards</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;">Nnenna<br></div><div> </div><div><br style="font-family:courier, monaco, monospace, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family:courier, monaco, monospace, sans-serif;"><br>Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants<br>Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development<br>Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob.
07416820<br>Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org <br>nnenna@nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com</span><br><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-style:italic;"></span><br></div> <div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Ian Peter <ian.peter@ianpeter.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette@apc.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:24 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC<br> </font> </div> <br>
I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is <br>well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the <br>multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a <br>workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards <br>development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than <br>attempts to interpret past writings.<br><br><br>Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals?<br><br><br>Ian<br><br><br><br>-----Original Message----- <br>From: Anriette Esterhuysen<br>Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM<br>To: <a ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection <br>of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC<br><br><br>Dear all<br><br>I share Ian's reaction. This conversation
counter-productive.<br><br>Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be<br>tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before)<br>and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe<br>that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results<br>whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill<br>proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental<br>SGs about how to improve processes.<br><br>My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to<br>complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work.<br><br>And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a<br>workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try<br>and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov<br>stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We<br>could also discuss the
categorisation of these<br>constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA<br>community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion.<br><br>Anriette<br><br><br><br>On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote:<br>> So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly<br>> that in response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like<br>> dropping involvement on this issue altogether.<br>><br>> But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and<br>> clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and<br>> technical" category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not<br>> ISOC or any individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for<br>> clarification here in the light of various statements made, as others<br>> have suggested. But I would not support an accusatory or complaining<br>> letter to anyone.<br>><br>> Irrespective of
anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think<br>> keeping the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our<br>> objectives here.<br>><br>> Ian Peter<br>><br>><br>> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake<br>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM<br>> To: <a ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a> ; parminder<br>> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on<br>> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC<br>><br>> Hi Parminder<br>><br>> snipping...<br>><br>> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder <<a ymailto="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>> wrote:<br>><br>>>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes. Conflating the<br>>>> 'technical' and the
'academic' communities into one category just<br>>>> triples down on the problem. This is utter nonsense<br>>><br>>> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of<br>>> 'expertise' and not constituency representation, and thus it is very<br>>> logical to put them together.<br>><br>> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with<br>> the TC is to disenfranchise the TC? So the topography would be just<br>> governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency<br>> representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial<br>> independent constituency being represented by the TC, one that's<br>> bigger than the IGC. But a bit more important than our respective<br>> views are the facts on the ground; the TC is recognized in the<br>> topography and that's not going to change because some CS folks don't<br>> like
it. Given that reality, there's no logical basis for them to<br>> deemed the representative of academics as well. There are academics<br>> who are properly in the TC because of their areas of disciplinary<br>> expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see<br>> themselves that way and feel they are CS.<br>><br>> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that<br>> non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group.<br>> Sure, it'd be nice for us to have our own little sandbox to build and<br>> demand our very own seats at the table, and hiving us off from CS<br>> could mean an increase in progressive voices etc. But we don't<br>> represent our students, colleagues, or institutions when we<br>> participate in these processes…we're individuals who can represent the<br>> networks we share views with etc. My concern is that individual CS<br>> people often
get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in some<br>> settings, but that's another conversation.<br>><br>>> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the<br>>> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector.<br>>> Then what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves?<br>><br>> Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good<br>> at…but of course not, it just depends on context. It's one thing when<br>> other SGs are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies<br>> that set policies, and another they're positioned as parallel peers in<br>> a process. We might think it odd for the business community to write<br>> to us expressing concern about how the IGC operates, no? If there's<br>> to be a push for different approaches in the TC's self-governance,<br>> it'd be better coming from within the TC
than from us. Of course,<br>> experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal<br>> remains valid.<br>>><br>>> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and<br>>> seek clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to<br>>> be sent on behalf 'tech/acad community' - - which is a public role<br>>> entrusted to them my a public authority - simply becuase we need to<br>>> be friendly with ISOC, it is really very problematic.<br>><br>> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but<br>> instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the<br>> processes followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to<br>> enhance our coordination where desirable. I don't know whether we<br>> could entice anyone into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth<br>> it could be worth a
try.<br>><br>> Best<br>><br>> Bill<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>><br>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>><br>> Translate this email: <a
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>><br><br>-- <br>------------------------------------------------------<br>anriette esterhuysen <a ymailto="mailto:anriette@apc.org" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br>executive director, association for progressive communications<br>www.apc.org<br>po box 29755, melville 2109<br>south africa<br>tel/fax +27 11 726 1692<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions,
see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a> <br><br><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>