<html><head/><body><html><head></head><body>+1<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette@apc.org> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word; font-family: sans-serif; margin-top: 0px">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 /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">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 /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8;
padding-left: 1ex;">-----Original Message-----<br />From: governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-<br />request@lists.igcaucus.org] 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 /><hr /><br />----<br />From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@hserus.net><br />Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013
17:30:01 +0530<br />To: "governance@lists.igcaucus.org" <governance@lists.igcaucus.org>,<br />parminder <parminder@itforchange.net><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 <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234;
padding-left: 1ex;">On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;">Wow, Gotcha...<br /><br /><br /><br />On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder<br /><parminder@itforchange.net> w=<br /></blockquote></blockquote>rote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;">On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:<br /><<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">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 /></blockquote>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'?</blockquote><br />I think probably yes <<a href="http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>">http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm></a>;<br /></blockquote>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 /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;">Adam<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;">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 /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid
#ccc; padding-left: 1ex;">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 /></blockquote>but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.<br /></blockquote>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</blockquote><br /></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>-- <br /><hr /><br />anriette esterhuysen anriette@apc.org<br />executive director, association for progressive communications<br /><a
href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a><br />po box 29755, melville 2109<br />south africa<br />tel/fax +27 11 726 1692<br /><br /><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
Avri Doria</body></html></body></html>