<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<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">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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>
<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-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 face="Calibri" size="3">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 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 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-FAMILY: ;
COLOR: "> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-FAMILY: ;
COLOR: "><font face="Verdana" size="3">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
moz-do-not-send="true"
title="parminder@itforchange.net"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder</a>
</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:27 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<p>
</p>
<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>
</body>
</html>