<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Ian Peter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Calibri'">
<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></blockquote><div><br>Thanks Ian - I was just about to do that. Thank you for saving me the effort. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Calibri'">
<div> </div>
<div>But I would change the title of workshop 2 to something broader – eg
“Multistakeholderism in practice – issues and principles” . Nnennas suggestions
were</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span><font face="Verdana">Objectives</font></span></div>
<ol>
<li><font face="Verdana"><span>Highlight lessons learned in MSism</span> </font>
</li><li><font face="Verdana"><span>Explore what has worked in transparency, openness
and inclusion</span> </font>
</li><li><font face="Verdana"><span>Discuss possible principles for non-government
stakeholder representation</span> </font>
</li><li><font face="Verdana"><span>Propose working methods for IGF MSism going
forward</span> </font>
</li><li><span><font face="Verdana">Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate
</font></span>
</li><li><span><font face="Verdana">Contribute a working document to the
CSTD.</font></span></li></ol>
<div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:'Calibri';display:inline;font-weight:normal">
<div style="FONT:10pt tahoma">
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3">Nnenna also suggested</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font> </div>
<div><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><font face="Verdana" size="3"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">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><font face="Verdana" size="3"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">And Parminder’s three workshop proposals are below.</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3"></font> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND:#f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="parminder@itforchange.net" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:'Calibri';display:inline;font-weight:normal">
<div> </div>
<div>On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter
wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote 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 href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals" target="_blank">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals</a>
<br><br><br>parminder <br><br><br><br>
<blockquote 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 href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>To be removed from the list, visit: <br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:
<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
<br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br><br></blockquote><br></blockquote><br>
<p>
</p><hr>
____________________________________________________________<br>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list,
visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and
functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find
the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br><p></p></div></div></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div>P.O. Box 17862</div><div>Suva</div><div>Fiji</div><div><br></div><div>Twitter: @SalanietaT</div><div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div>
<div>Tel: +679 3544828</div><div>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851</div><div>Blog: <a href="http://salanieta.blogspot.com" target="_blank">salanieta.blogspot.com</a><br></div><div> </div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br>
</span></font></div>