<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>yes, i really liked Anita’s speech, Parminder, and particularly the quote
you include below.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But I don’t see the point in organising a workshop 9 months hence that
concentrates solely on one specific question of representation, or even just on
the processes of selection by stakeholder groups. It could well be that this
specific issue is resolved by then – but whether that is the case or not I would
like to see broader issues and principles discussed as I think that is more
likely to lead to useful outcomes.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ian Peter</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=parminder@itforchange.net
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:50 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=ian.peter@ianpeter.com
href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">Ian Peter</A> ; <A
title=governance@lists.igcaucus.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [governance] Re: Workshop Proposals - a few days to
go</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> </DIV>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>On Tuesday 19 March 2013 11:17 AM, Ian Peter
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>I’m pulling Parminder’s proposal out of another thread for ease of
comment and discussion, and also attaching some comments from Nnenna earlier
on as regards workshop 2. We have just a few days to finalise this, I think
all three workshop proposals are deserving of consideration.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But I would change the title of workshop 2 to something broader – eg
“Multistakeholderism in practice – issues and principles”
.</DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Dear Ian<BR><BR>I will go with what you say
on this. <BR><BR>But on a larger point. I think civil society needs to
take stock about what is happening in the IGF and outside and its role in it.
IGF is close to 10 years old: it hasnt done one useful thing till now. (I know
there will be a lot dissenting voices about how it has helped people hold
hands and all that, but for the sake of people we represent and whose monies we
often use to attend IGF etc, lets get a bit real here.)<BR><BR>Even governments,
esp developing country ones, have been aghast at what happens (doesnt happen) at
the IGFs, and have mostly disengaged. (unlike earlier times they -
developing country governments - are either not in MAG meetings and if they do
come, do nothing). And the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, despite various
counter-attempts by status quosits did end up insisting - for God's stake get on
and do something - and suggested that <I>we focus on clear policy question, and
have outcomes that pull together clear response to such policy
questions</I>....<BR><BR>And here civil society is not ready to ask a clear
specific question and seek responses to it, to possibly get some forward
movement. What is wrong with directly going to the point and discussing
'modalities for non gov stakeholder selection' when we know that is <I>the</I>
issue. We all know what blah blah will otherwise consume the 90 minutes that we
have. Why are we becoming so soft - does that behove civil society, who is
supposed to be struggling against all odds for those who really cant make it to
the spaces where decisions about their lives are being taken. I am reminded what
my colleage Anita said in her closing address at WSIS plus ten and I
quote<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"<FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Multistakeholderism
is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a means of legitimization.
Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people. We need
to use this occasion of the WSIS plus 10 review to go back to the the
touchstone of legitimacy – engage with people and communities to find out
the conditions of their material reality and what seems to lie ahead in the
information society. From here we need to build our perspectives and then
come to multistakeholder spaces and fight and fight hard for those who
cannot be present here.</FONT>"<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And, Ian, I
remember you response to her speech; "Great speech by Anita. Glad someone
actually said something for a change!"<BR><BR>IGF has become a space for making
a big show of 'not saying anything'. And as civil society group we need to break
that pattern and not contribute to it. The recent discussion shows that we may
be becoming too soft, getting into discussion of good manner, behaviour
niceties, careful use of words, and not hurting others and so on (which are all
of course important in their due place) and forgetting what hard political
realities these soft talks cover up. Hard realities that matter to the real
lives of real people. Our main alligiance is to them, not to the forces of
status quo. (Sorry, it is becoming a speech, and I really am no longer
addressing it to you, Ian, so much as speaking generally :) ) I think we are
loosing our focus, and we need to do a real rethink about where we are as civil,
whom we represent, what are achieving and so on. And exactly as Anita warned us
- <I>multistakeholderism is becoming our framework of legitimisation and not
really just of engagement</I>. <BR><BR>BTW, in the same speech she also referred
to <FONT face="Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif">Jo Freeman's essay -
'<A href="http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm">The tyranny of
structurelessness</A>'. I greatly encourage everyone to read it, and one would
get a good picture of what is happening in the IGF, and even here, right now,
all this multistakeholder cosying up, and giving a bad name to those who but
dare say, 'well, yes but......'.<BR><BR><BR>parminder
<BR><BR><BR></FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:1F5287C9029F465BACBD9F2D60F95418@Toshiba type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Nnennas suggestions were</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: "><SPAN><FONT
face=Verdana>Objectives</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<OL>
<LI><FONT face=Verdana><SPAN>Highlight lessons learned in MSism</SPAN>
</FONT>
<LI><FONT face=Verdana><SPAN>Explore what has worked in transparency,
openness and inclusion</SPAN> </FONT>
<LI><FONT face=Verdana><SPAN>Discuss possible principles for non-government
stakeholder representation</SPAN> </FONT>
<LI><FONT face=Verdana><SPAN>Propose working methods for IGF MSism going
forward</SPAN> </FONT>
<LI><SPAN><FONT face=Verdana>Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate
</FONT></SPAN>
<LI><SPAN><FONT face=Verdana>Contribute a working document to the
CSTD.</FONT></SPAN> </LI></OL>
<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><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Nnenna also suggested</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: "><FONT
face=Verdana><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">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.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: "> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: "><FONT
size=3 face=Verdana>To which I would add that the success of such a workshop
(and probably even its approval) is dependent on the participation of other
stakeholders. While I realise some people here would prefer a more direct
reference and discussion on recent issues, I think a broader approach, while
not avoiding these issues, is both pragmatic and also likely to lead to a
better workshop.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: "> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: "><FONT
size=3 face=Verdana>And Parminder’s three workshop proposals are
below.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: "> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=parminder@itforchange.net
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" moz-do-not-send="true">parminder</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:27 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=governance@lists.igcaucus.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</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> </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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.igcaucus.org/</A> <BR><BR>Translate this
email: <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A>
<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<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></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<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>