<div dir="ltr">+ 1<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"></div><div class="gmail_extra">Bill is an _invited_ expert to that panel. Which means CS has no representation on it, just like several other stakeholders as Bill mentioned. So if we want to complain about that, we should be making such complain to ICANN & Co., and particularly to Fadi (if that's really the case that he asked for 2 names, based on what I remember was posted here about the communication Robin had with him... hoping my memory is correct.) <br>
<br>So on the one hand, he reportedly told one of us to provide him with 2 names, and on the other hand he later wrote "we were never in a position to grow the panel any further" (despite the fact that the PR Newswire piece reporting the appointment of the panel ended with the following: "Additional members to be confirmed.) Which is it? Admittedly, the written, which also happens to be the latest, instance of advice would be more authoritative. In any case, that's where the problem lies, if any, IMHO. And on that specific point I agree with Marillia. We may have well-accepted, predictable process for nomination and still run into this problem. <br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Now, this is not the first time we were asked in some process to put names forward and yet, eventually, people completely outside of the list we came up with were appointed. If that bothers anyone, as it should, then we need to start trying to understand why that is so. Are these CS networks being seen as irrelevant? Is there anything we could do to correct this? Or are there some other reasons that might justify that state of affairs? In a nutshell, this one at least is not just an intra-CS problem as much as it is about how CS in
this space is being dealt with. However, we may have some responsibility
for improving this situation.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">In the meantime one possible way to handle these invitations to nominate is to clarify with the "inviters": <br><br>i) Is this an invitation that means "I have these slots to fill and I need you to help me in identifying some good CS members I can pick from to do the job, keeping in mind that I've made the same request formally or informally to other people/places"? <br>
ii) Or is it an invitation that means "I have this group appointment to take care of which requires CS representatives, and I need you guys to provide me with a list of your representatives from which the CS portion of the group _will_ be selected (possibly: keeping in mind that other CS groupings including X, Y, Z... have been asked to do the same)"?<br>
<br>In the latter case, we would expect all the CS appointees to have been slated by at least one or any number of the CS groupings invited to nominate; while in the former the "inviters" may come up with any name(s) they eventually are happy with whether we proposed those names or not, and that would be fine. At least that way we would know whether the case is worth putting our energy to run a full nomination process (or even to discuss it collectively) or not. <br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">N.B. Nothing from the above goes against the notion that it would be great for us to agree on some way to smooth our nomination processes so that we can make more space and give our all to substantive issues.<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Mawaki<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Marilia Maciel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com" target="_blank">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with how the HL panel matter has been conducted. <div>
<br></div><div>Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any representative there to convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all organizations that participated in the NonCom process - were made fool in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not be clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a unfulfilled yes. </div>
<div><br></div><div>With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. I think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance, answer the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as soon as we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is understandable that we are talking about process. Process is all we have to talk about without knowing not even what the agenda is, and without having an idea of how to contribute. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate concerns, I rest my case about this.</div><div><br></div><div>Marília </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com" target="_blank">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I strongly share Jeanette's opinion.<br>
<br>
Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that characterization typifies many of the people on the list, I think) have both positive messages and concerns. The positive messages are those that many of us automatically subscribe to when they are expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom of expression. These are positive messages.<br>
<br>
The concerns come because such desired states are often weakened by others, typically by governments but also by certain trends in other sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be 'at the table' with other sectors, comes from the possibility that these positions will be eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by other sectors. The desire to be included is a quite understandable reaction to that possibility.<br>
<br>
But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and disputes regarding who gets to represent a group that appears homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity superficial? If so, it would be more useful to explore and understand the differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based upon ideological purity of the process for selection? That seems counterproductive and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute based upon lack of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is the representation process an end in itself, regardless of its effect upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this should be reconstituted as a political science theory group.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that rather than spending so much time discussing and debating representation issues, it would be more useful to discuss why representation issues are so important, often IMO to the detriment of working on real civil society issues.<br>
<br>
I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, it surely seems more productive to address them directly rather than through this proxy dispute based on representation.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
George<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
<br>
On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:<br>
<br>
> I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the<br>
> bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling positions<br>
> on various committtees.<br>
><br>
> In another message from last week that probably got lost or still awaits<br>
> the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about committee<br>
> positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing aside<br>
> the debate over issues and opinions.<br>
><br>
> Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between<br>
> appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I wished<br>
> we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and focused more<br>
> on the message we want to convey.<br>
><br>
> jeanette<br>
><br>
> Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak:<br>
>> Hello,dfasfd<br>
>><br>
>> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it<br>
>> should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in<br>
>> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up,<br>
>> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found<br>
>> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it<br>
>> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope<br>
>> that we wont regret such decision later.<br>
>><br>
>> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely<br>
>> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be<br>
>> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included<br>
>> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will<br>
>> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process?<br>
>><br>
>> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name<br>
>> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here.<br>
>><br>
>> Rafik<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel <<a href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com" target="_blank">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com" target="_blank">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>><br>
>> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is<br>
>> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it<br>
>> does seem that they are including who they want and how they want,<br>
>> totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to<br>
>> appoint names.<br>
>><br>
>> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated<br>
>> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read<br>
>> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some<br>
>> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier:<br>
>> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance<br>
>> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be<br>
>> created or clarified<br>
>> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of<br>
>> the CSTD ECWG)<br>
>> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow<br>
>> Chatam House rules<br>
>> And<br>
>> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an<br>
>> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be<br>
>> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS<br>
>> representation.<br>
>><br>
>> Marília<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and<br>
>> the CS<br>
>> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so<br>
>> clear<br>
>> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially<br>
>> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days.<br>
>> Either one<br>
>> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be<br>
>> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a<br>
>> substitute for<br>
>> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no<br>
>> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that<br>
>> there will<br>
>> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact<br>
>> that<br>
>> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't<br>
>> > something that inspires confidence, is it?<br>
>><br>
>> +1<br>
>><br>
>> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society<br>
>> process through which names have been put forward.<br>
>><br>
>> Greetings,<br>
>> Norbert<br>
>><br>
>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>.<br>
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> *Marília Maciel*<br>
>> Pesquisadora Gestora<br>
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio<br>
>><br>
>> Researcher and Coordinator<br>
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School<br>
>> <a href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts" target="_blank">http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts</a><br>
>><br>
>> DiploFoundation associate<br>
>> <a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu" target="_blank">www.diplomacy.edu</a> <<a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu" target="_blank">http://www.diplomacy.edu</a>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>.<br>
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
</div></div><div><div>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><span><font color="#888888">-- <br></font></span><div dir="ltr"><span><font color="#888888"><div><b>Marília Maciel</b></div></font></span><div>
<div><font color="#444444">Pesquisadora Gestora</font></div><div><font color="#444444">Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - </font><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">FGV Direito Rio</span></div>
<div><font color="#444444"><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666">Researcher and Coordinator</font></div><div><font color="#666666">Center for Technology & Society - </font><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">FGV Law School</span></div>
<div><font color="#666666"><a href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts" target="_blank">http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts</a><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666">DiploFoundation associate</font></div>
<div><font color="#666666"><a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu" target="_blank">www.diplomacy.edu</a></font></div><div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><br><div><br></div></div></div></div>
</div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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></div>