<div dir="ltr">Also +1 supporting Milton's view on how to approach this problem.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Sincerely,<br><br>Walid<br><br>-----------------<br><br>Walid Al-Saqaf<br>
Founder & Administrator<br>alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship<br><a href="https://alkasir.com" target="_blank">https://alkasir.com</a><a href="mailto:walid.al-saqaf@oru.se" target="_blank"></a><div>
<br></div><div>PGP: <a href="https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt" target="_blank">https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt</a></div></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM, William Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
+another<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <<a href="mailto:tapani.tarvainen@effi.org">tapani.tarvainen@effi.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> +1<br>
><br>
> Tapani<br>
><br>
> On Apr 08 08:31, Anriette Esterhuysen (<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>) wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I agree with Milton.<br>
>><br>
>> I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But<br>
>> the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,<br>
>> certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable<br>
>> in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to everyone<br>
>> in the same way.<br>
>><br>
>> A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some<br>
>> people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more<br>
>> inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their analysis,<br>
>> and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.<br>
>><br>
>> It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that<br>
>> are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express<br>
>> themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those<br>
>> with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre<br>
>> intended to capture and convince those around them.<br>
>><br>
>> I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) - and<br>
>> recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the<br>
>> hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions. But<br>
>> when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and<br>
>> intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile<br>
>> environment.<br>
>><br>
>> As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people<br>
>> offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the<br>
>> only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's<br>
>> process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.<br>
>><br>
>> Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list<br>
>> discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a<br>
>> relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is<br>
>> agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -<br>
>> even if no consensus was reached.<br>
>><br>
>> Anriette<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
>>> Norbert:<br>
>>> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>> From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-">governance-</a><br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:request@lists.igcaucus.org">request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow<br>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM<br>
>>>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian<br>
>>>> Cc: IGC<br>
>>>> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in<br>
>>>> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hello Suresh<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,<br>
>>>> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile<br>
>>>> environment”.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal<br>
>>>> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks<br>
>>>> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the<br>
>>>> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of<br>
>>>> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to<br>
>>>> constructive discussion and reflection.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are<br>
>>>> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on<br>
>>>> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be discussed<br>
>>>> in a non-hostile environment.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to<br>
>>>> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including<br>
>>>> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are<br>
>>>> somehow totally inappropriate.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you<br>
>>>> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your<br>
>>>> posting rights will be suspended for one month.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Regards,<br>
>>>> Norbert and Sala<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>>> ----<br>
>>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <<a href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net">suresh@hserus.net</a>><br>
>>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530<br>
>>>> To: "<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,<br>
>>>> parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working<br>
>>>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for<br>
>>>> another constituency chooses?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to<br>
>>>> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of<br>
>>>> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal<br>
>>>> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive<br>
>>>> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing<br>
>>>> positively to it.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --srs (iPad)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
>>>>>> Wow, Gotcha...<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder<br>
>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> w=<br>
>>>> rote:<br>
>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>> <snip><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> you are incorrect. The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst<br>
>>>>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would<br>
>>>>>>>> include.<br>
>>>>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of<br>
>>>>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us<br>
>>>>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are<br>
>>>>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet<br>
>>>>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is<br>
>>>>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I think probably yes <<a href="http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm</a>><br>
>>>>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying<br>
>>>>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved<br>
>>>>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would<br>
>>>>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the<br>
>>>>> WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard<br>
>>>>> from the concerned focal point.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them<br>
>>>>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and<br>
>>>>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the<br>
>>>>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to<br>
>>>>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder<br>
>>>>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held<br>
>>>>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made<br>
>>>>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and<br>
>>>>> publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep<br>
>>>>> selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.<br>
>>>>> This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as<br>
>>>>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the<br>
>>>>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on<br>
>>>>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even<br>
>>>>> two music schools involved there....<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the<br>
>>>>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not<br>
>>>>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with<br>
>>>>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance<br>
>>>>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for<br>
>>>>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community<br>
>>>>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should<br>
>>>>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what<br>
>>>>> to say about the 'academic' part....<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those<br>
>>>>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the<br>
>>>>> Internet - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,<br>
>>>>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even<br>
>>>>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be<br>
>>>>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that<br>
>>>>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,<br>
>>>>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is<br>
>>>>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow<br>
>>>>> interpretation of their definition.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even<br>
>>>>> if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case<br>
>>>>> make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that<br>
>>>>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee -<br>
>>>>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the<br>
>>>>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder<br>
>>>>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC<br>
>>>>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they<br>
>>>>> out reach to.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> parminder<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Adam<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as<br>
>>>>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal<br>
>>>>>>> point for the WG on EC?<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but<br>
>>>>>>>>> not for the UN system.....<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of<br>
>>>>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point<br>
>>>>>>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part<br>
>>>>>>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.<br>
>>>>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.<br>
>>>>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final<br>
>>>>>>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running<br>
>>>>>>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of<br>
>>>>>>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the<br>
>>>>>>> Internet'?<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> parminder<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> ------------------------------------------------------<br>
>> anriette esterhuysen <a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br>
>> executive director, association for progressive communications<br>
>> <a href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><br>
>> po box 29755, melville 2109<br>
>> south africa<br>
>> tel/fax <a href="tel:%2B27%2011%20726%201692" value="+27117261692">+27 11 726 1692</a><br>
><br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> ____________________________________________________________<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>
<br>
</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></div>