<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 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>
</body>
</html>