<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>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” . 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><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </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: "><FONT size=3
face=Verdana></FONT> </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: "><FONT size=3
face=Verdana></FONT> </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: "><FONT size=3
face=Verdana></FONT> </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 2:27 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A 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
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>
<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>