<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Dear Constance</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">(copying Ayesha Hassan - business
focal point - and the IGC
list)<br>
<br>
Thank you for your message and for your openness to discussing the
concerns raised in the IGC list. I am responding in my
capacity as focal point for the selection of CS participants in
the
CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. As you have been following the
discussion on the IGC list you would have a sense of the range of
concerns and issues (and views on these) that this process has
generated. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">As the political implications of the
work done in these multi-stakeholder processes increase in
potential
impact - which is a positive sign - it is understandable that the
processes used to identify participants in them will be under more
intense scrutiny. This is certainly the case when it comes to
'enhanced cooperation'. I don't think that this scrutiny is being
applied only to the TA constituency.
I think it applies to all three non-governmental groups and
possibly also to governments. In my role as focal point I tried
to, on the one hand, respect the CS
groupings already active in the IGF space, as well as create
opportunities for civil society organisations/individuals that are
not necessarily active in the IGF, but that have valuable
experience
in other governance processes. I was not as successful in this
attempt as I would have liked to be.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">With regard to Michael Gurstein's
nomination I can confirm that he did not put his name forward for
CS
selection. When I approached him to confirm his interest – I knew
he was interested in participating in the WG - he informed me that
he
had put his name forward to the TA community and he was therefore
not
included in the CS selection process at all.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">My view is that the most constructive
approach at this point would be:<br>
<br>
1) For the chairperson of the
CSTD to finalise the selection of the WG based on the inputs
received
from stakeholder groups and for the CSTD WG to start its work;<br>
<br>
2)
For the non-governmental stakeholder groups to pick up on the
issues
and concerns that the selection has raised at a workshop at the
2013
IGF.<br>
<br>
Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three
groups and used to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and
identify good practice approaches. We could also discuss the
composition of
these constituency groups, including ambiguity around the
definitions
of the TA community and the challenges that arise at times in CS
from
having a mix of organisational members and individual CS activists
and analysts. <br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The outcomes of discussion at the
workshop could become an input to the CSTD WG on EC.<br>
<br>
The
objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building
on
the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list): </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">1. Highlight lessons learned from our
involvement in multi-stakeholder processes</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">2. Explore what has worked or not
worked in terms of how stakeholder groups are defined and
represented</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">3. Build a common understanding on
what
would constitute sufficient transparency, openness and inclusion
in
such processes and discuss possible principles to work from</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">4. Propose working methods for going
forward</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation
discussion and contribute a working document to the CSTD WG on EC.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Discussion between the three groups
could potentially begin in the build up to the IGF. There is
certainly interest on the IGC list to initiate such discussion. We
could also use the opportunity of the next IGF open consultation
to
have a face to face discussion.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Best regards</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Anriette</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<pre wrap=""><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)"><style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style></pre>
<br>
<pre wrap=""><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)"><style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style></pre>
<font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"></font></font></font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/03/2013 11:18, Constance
Bommelaer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51458A64.500@isoc.org" type="cite">Dear
Anriette,
<br>
<br>
I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil
Society for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on
Enhanced Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the
importance we attach to the relationships we have been able to
build across various stakeholders groups throughout the years. For
this reason I am also sending a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil
Society group.
<br>
<br>
The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced
Cooperation has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there
is a move underway to question the representation of the technical
and academic community in the Working Group and we presume that
this was triggered by the discussions surrounding the
non-selection of Michael Gurstein.
<br>
<br>
I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of
our stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within
our community. The names put forward were subject to considerable
discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from
Civil Society and the Business community (including their focal
points). The criteria used were shared with all interested
individuals as well as with the UN.
<br>
<br>
Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same
criteria and his name was not retained. We fail to understand why
he appeals to the Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our
procedures. Up until February 2013, he considered himself being
part of Civil Society and spoke as one of its leaders and
representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also understand
that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the
Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of
transparency, I mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD
who nominates the representatives of the various stakeholder
groups. I do believe, however, that unsuccessful applicants in one
process should not engage in “constituency shopping” and question
the entire process.
<br>
<br>
The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community
as a separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a
separate group and always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection
process. It is understood that the definition contained in the
Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new groups could even appear
tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it referred to the
community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the
day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work
within this community. This category manifested itself in the
WGIG process. Other academics had been involved in WSIS right from
the start but identified themselves with Civil Society. This
distinction has been used by the UN since 2005.
<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder
groups can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for
the technical and academic community to be merged with Civil
Society or even for its representatives to be appointed by
governments contradicts the multistakeholder principle that we are
all attached to. Furthermore, I believe no group should attempt to
impose control upon another, nor should any group be beholden to
another. This would be the end of multistakeholderism.
<br>
<br>
Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a
delicate plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to
nurturing it with its own culture, and processes. The technical
community’s work is based on open and inclusive development
processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society has always
demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy
dialogues. We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil
Society in arenas where critical discussions are being held (e.g.
ITU, OECD, etc). We also support the participation of individuals
from all stakeholder groups in Internet governance discussions
(IGF, IETF, etc.).
<br>
<br>
Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder
groups are key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look
forward to working with all of you in this spirit.
<br>
<br>
Thank you and best regards,
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</body>
</html>