[governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps

[Jeanette Hofmann]

I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the 
bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling positions 
on various committtees.

In another message from last week that probably got lost or still awaits 
the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about committee 
positions and other appointments which is more or less  pushing aside 
the debate over issues and opinions.

Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between 
appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I wished 
we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and focused more 
on the message we want to convey.

jeanette

Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak:
> Hello,dfasfd
>
> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it
> should  be and doing for it  a free promotion! honestly, I was not in
> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up,
> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found
> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it
> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope
> that we wont regret such decision later.
>
> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely
> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be
> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included
> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will
> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process?
>
> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name
> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here.
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>
>
>     Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is
>     positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it
>     does seem that they are including who they want and how they want,
>     totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to
>     appoint names.
>
>     I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated
>     in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read
>     during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some
>     concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier:
>     - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance
>     - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be
>     created or clarified
>     - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of
>     the CSTD ECWG)
>     - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow
>     Chatam House rules
>     And
>     - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an
>     internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be
>     immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS
>     representation.
>
>     Marília
>
>
>     On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch
>     <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>
>         Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>
>          > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and
>         the CS
>          > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so
>         clear
>          > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially
>          > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days.
>         Either one
>          > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be
>          > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a
>         substitute for
>          > the other.  At this stage, I would assume that if there is no
>          > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that
>         there will
>          > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact
>         that
>          > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't
>          > something that inspires confidence, is it?
>
>         +1
>
>         Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society
>         process through which names have been put forward.
>
>         Greetings,
>         Norbert
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     *Marília Maciel*
>     Pesquisadora Gestora
>     Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
>     Researcher and Coordinator
>     Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>     http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
>     DiploFoundation associate
>     www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>