<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>I fully support the third proposal.</div><div><br></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>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<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"><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></body></html>