<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 18 March 2013 01:54 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5146CF45.4070004@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Verdana"><snip></font><br>
<br>
Lastly, since I am intent that civil society does fulfil its
responsibility in the present case, and goes beyond simple
waffling, I will seek that we do something here when so many of us
clearly see there is a problem to be addressed. I see good support
for a letter to the CSTD instead of ISOC (maybe we can copy that
letter to them), and in my next email I will prose such a text. <br>
<br>
I will like this text to be put for voting after a discussion,
unless of course we see complete support for the letter in which
case the vote will be unnecessary.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi All, <br>
<br>
I propose the following text for an IGC letter to the Chair of CSTD
( with a possible cc to ISOC). <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
(Suggested text begins)<br>
<br>
Dear ...<br>
Chair, CSTD. <br>
<br>
<br>
We approach your office to request a
clarification about the definition that was employed, or was
supposed
to be employed, to identify nominees from the 'technical and
academic
community' for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation that
is
being set up. Some academics have felt excluded because, apparently,
as per a communication to us from the Focal Point for forwarding
nominees from the 'technical and academic community' only
"organizations and individuals who are involved in the
day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work
within
this community" were considered.
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">We are not sure how this definition
matches with the intention of Tunis Agenda (particularly Sec 35)
and
the concerned UN General Assembly resolution that mandated the
setting up of the Working Group, which, significantly, uses the
plural term 'technical and academic communities'. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">We will particularly like to know if
academics can apply under this category, and whether applying
academics should just be from among technical/ engineering
disciplines, or if other areas of academic expertise related to
Internet – like social media, ICTs for development, cyber-law, etc
may also be eligible? Secondly, whether technical people who may
not
be associated with organizations involved with day to day
operational
management of the Internet may also be considered in this
category?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">We understand that participation of
different non-government stakeholders in increasingly the norm in
WSIS related processes, for which the CSTD is the focal point for
system-wide follow-up. In this regard, whether this may or not
have
any bearing on the current process for constituting the WG on EC,
such a clarification would be extremely useful for other such
processes in
the future. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">We also take the opportunity to draw
your attention to the report of the CSTD Working Group on
Improvements to the IGF, whereby it has been recommended that the
process of stakeholder nomination and selection for
Multi-stakeholder
Advisory Group of the UN Internet Governance Forum be fully
documented and publicized. It would perhaps be useful to make such
full documentation and publication as the norm for stakeholder
nomination/ selection processes for all bodies, committees,
working
groups etc.<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">We are happy to assist you in all ways
possible for developing norms and guidelines for selection of
stakeholder representatives to various bodies, which, in our view,
is an exercise that should be undertaken in the right earnest.<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">(ends)<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5146CF45.4070004@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 18 March 2013 03:33 AM,
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51463D97.1010503@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a> ; 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 <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>