<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=content-type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>yes, all three, and there is every indication both business and
technical/academic communities will join us on (2)</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=jeremy@ciroap.org
href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">Jeremy Malcolm</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:03 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=governance@lists.igcaucus.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A> ;
<A title=suresh@hserus.net href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net">Suresh
Ramasubramanian</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on
selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV>Support all three (excuse brevity, replying by phone).<BR><BR>--
<DIV>Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com</DIV>
<DIV>Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek </DIV>
<DIV>host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.<A
href="http://e164.org">e164.org</A>|awk -F! '{print $3}'</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR>On 19 Mar, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <<A
href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net">suresh@hserus.net</A>> wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV>I fully support the third proposal.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.<BR><BR>As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons
discussed during this thread.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>--srs (iPad)</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder <<A
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:ECE49BAE50A84E15AFA5C93026B63042@Toshiba
type="cite">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. <BR><BR><BR>Dont we have
an imminent deadline for workshop proposals? <BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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.
<BR><BR>I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Second should be a workshop on <I><B>'Modalities for selection
of (non gov) stakeholder representatives for public bodies'</B></I>
.<BR><BR>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 <I><B>'how
traditional telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions,
apply or dont apply to the Internet'</B></I> . 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. <BR><BR>Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma
for submitting workshops proposals is online now at <A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals</A>
<BR><BR><BR>parminder <BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:ECE49BAE50A84E15AFA5C93026B63042@Toshiba
type="cite"><BR><BR>Ian <BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message----- From:
Anriette Esterhuysen <BR>Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM <BR>To: <A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A>
<BR>Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on
selection 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>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">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
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
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 class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">mailto:parminder@itforchange.net</A>
<BR>wrote: <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">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></BLOCKQUOTE><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></BLOCKQUOTE><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>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">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></BLOCKQUOTE><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>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><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></BLOCKQUOTE><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 class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A>
<BR>To be removed from the list, visit: <BR> <A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</A>
<BR><BR>For all other list information and functions, see:
<BR> <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</A>
<BR>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<BR> <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</A>
<BR><BR>Translate this email: <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A>
<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>____________________________________________________________</SPAN><BR><SPAN>You
received this message as a subscriber on the
list:</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>To
be removed from the list, visit:</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN></SPAN><BR><SPAN>For
all other list information and functions,
see:</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>To
edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,
see:</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN></SPAN><BR><SPAN>Translate
this email: <A
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A></SPAN><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>____________________________________________________________</SPAN><BR><SPAN>You
received this message as a subscriber on the
list:</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>To
be removed from the list, visit:</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN></SPAN><BR><SPAN>For
all other list information and functions,
see:</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>To
edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,
see:</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN></SPAN><BR><SPAN>Translate
this email: <A
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A></SPAN><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR>To be removed from the list,
visit:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<BR><BR>For all other list information and
functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<BR>To edit your profile and to find
the IGC's charter, see:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/<BR><BR>Translate this email:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>