<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>The technical community includes a lot of people who have decades of hands on ICT development and capacity building work (UOregon NSRC, packet clearing house for example) and people with that background are, as you say, valuable. </div><div><br></div><div>I would include community informatics as you describe it as a TC subset, or at least counterpart - but the focus should also be on meaningful contributions submitted by your constituency. That along with engagement will automatically lead to inclusiveness, much more likely than simply demanding a stake 'just because'.<br><br>Such people who also have a policy background are a great improvement over politically focused actors in any such consensus based igov process.</div><div><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 12-Jan-2014, at 21:02, "michael gurstein" <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Deidre and all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The “who” in terms of these committees matters a very great deal in determining the “what” of the expressions that are allowed to appear because the “who” on these committees provide the framing of the questions which will be discussed and thus the determination of those points of view which are “acceptable” and those which fall outside of those norms.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The Community Informatics community in large part arose precisely because the “who” of participation at the WSIS consisted almost exclusively of people talking about other people’s work and almost no one actually speaking of their own work or of work with which they had a close association and direct sympathy. As I’ve noted several times in the past actual grass roots users or grass roots practitioners particularly those working with the marginalized were not present and most certainly not well “re”presented by those who did participate in WSIS. Grassroots users/practitioners have had to live with the consequences ever since.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Deirdre Williams<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:13 PM<br><b>To:</b> Internet Governance; William Drake<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">"BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of </span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items.</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> "</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">The brouhaha over who is selected and how seems to me to be a wonderful example of the magical results of smoke and mirrors, and earns my (grudging) respect for the very clever strategy that started it all.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Speaking for myself, as one who will be represented, at the moment I see very little chance of being represented at all. If you wish to represent me then you must take some trouble to establish what my position is on the various issues that may be discussed. The priority should be for the what, the issues and positions, rather than for the who.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I suspect/hope that Bill's "infinitesimally" has wriggled its way somehow out of context.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Of course if no representation is intended then the who becomes supremely important, since I must hope that my point of view will find its way to the meeting through the serendipity of "shared values".<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">In connection with this I should like to second Ginger's proposal for facilitation of really effective remote PARTICIPATION for the Brazil meeting, and for as much of the preparatory process as is practical.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On 12 January 2014 06:31, William Drake <<a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com" target="_blank">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Hi Norbert<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">William Drake <<a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com" target="_blank">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>wrote:<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">However, before the message that the meeting would now be an<br>LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request.<br>As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have<br>insisted on dealing directly with the LOC,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br>Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate<br>our participation when we expressly decided against it..<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br>For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in<br>agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us<br>both :-)<br><br>Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist<br>on dealing directly with the LOC<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br>The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online<br>at <a href="http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/" target="_blank">http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/</a> is signed as follows:<br><br>Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (<a href="mailto:steering@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">steering@lists.bestbits.net</a>)<br>IRP Coalition (<a href="mailto:info@irpcharter.org" target="_blank">info@irpcharter.org</a>)<br>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the<br>Internet Governance Caucus (<a href="mailto:coordinators@igcaucus.org" target="_blank">coordinators@igcaucus.org</a>)<br>Association for Progressive Communications – APC (<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a>)<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br>In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter might<br>be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the<br>signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC<br>has not formally endorsed it. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for clarifying this.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The two people who were at the time the<br>co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter<br>certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people who met<br>in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal">Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization. Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing, or expecting that what the people who happened to be in that room said permanently committed the networks of which they’re members to a position that could not be reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and yet it has been routinely asserted since that this is IGC’s position.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of the positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response. Maybe people don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that won’t lead to rough consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either way, whatever. While this floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines for the provision of names get closer. And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser <<a href="mailto:glaser@cgi.br" target="_blank">glaser@cgi.br</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal">So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 3 names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Correct ...</span></b><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal">So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each submit 2 names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Correct ...</span></b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that, then they are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of deciding which nominations to accept from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly does not want to be in that position, which is why they asked people to sort this out and submit through the 1Net SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces compelling them). At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 committees. Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which most of them do. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">And if it’s</span><span style="font-size:18.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">the 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it just pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets feel may say they’ve been excluded, or does it have to select among competing nets' nominations, in which case it’ll be accused of abusing authority nobody granted it (see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should not be put in this position, either.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down. Either we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of </span>infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting agenda items.<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Bill</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br clear="all"><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br><span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br><span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br><span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>