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

[George Sadowsky]

Dear Milton,

I'm sorry that you are especially unimpressed by my statements, but you do have a right to feel that way.  However, I would appreciate it if you would be precise in quoting me  I never said what you quoted me as saying below.  Rather, what you have in quotes below appears to be a negative paraphrase of what you thought I meant.

Milton, let's make a deal.  I'll try to impress you more, and you try to quote me accurately, without paraphrasing me pejoratively.  You don't have to like what I say, but please don't distort it.  OK?

Now, with regard to substance, perhaps the segué from the HLLM discssion to the general representation issue was imperfect.  I think that neither Jeanette nor I were arguing specifically with respect to the issue of representation on the HLLM.  I at least was addressing the general issue of concentrating so heavily upon representation processes in general and paying little attention to issues of substance.  I wasn't thinking about the HLLM at all.    Perhaps the poor segué caused you to miss that point.

There is quite a confusion caused by the number of committees that have recently been formed.  Here's my tally, and be aware that it may contain inaccuracies and misunderstandings:

1. Four Strategy Advisory Committees in a variety of issue areas, discussed over the summer, all internal to ICANN.

2. One HLLM, originally the fifth committee in the above group, repurposed from within ICANN sometime in October to provide a more general discussion of Internet governance, precipitated largely (I think) by the offer of Brazil to host a high-level meeting.  The committee was essentially formed, but had not been announced, prior to the Brazil offer.

3. One steering committee for the i-coordination effort, with five members each from each stakeholder group.  It was the selection process for this committee that I had in mind when I wrote the text that underwhelmed you.

4. Three committees specifically to support the Brazil meeting; according to Carlos Afonso, planning has not ye reached the stage when recommendations should be solicited for possible stakeholder representation.

Are there any more committees lurking out there?  I hope not!

Now here is a question for you,Milton.  When you use the plural in the sentence, "If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others?" Which committees are you implying that ICANN is , let's say, controlling by appoint some people and not others?  I only see the HLLM committee as having a possible dispute regarding representation, not any other.  Your use of plural implies otherwise. Can you explain?

Next, you ask me to apologize for 'the mess.'  Two points: first, the entire discussion regarding Internet governance is messy, because in general we know where we want to leave from, but we don't know where we want to end up.  If we did, then that end state would have been widely articulated in detail and accepted. That is a problem that we all share, in common, and there's no need to apologize for it by me, or by you.  That is just the reality of the current situation.  

Second, it is correct that the 1net initiative got off to a shaky start, but it is developing.  My sense of 1net is that it is a place for multiple stakeholder groups to met and discuss IG issues of common concern.  It is not tied to a meeting in Brazl, although if it were to produce useful output, it could be used there.  AFAIK there isn't another discussion space like it except IGF, and the results of IGF are ephemeral.   Perhaps you are aware of others.  Perhaps you feel that the effort is in the wrong direction.

Finally, as you are aware, I think that it's better to engage than to keep silent.  I'd like to engage on courteous and professional terms.  I hope that we can agree to that.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Dec 11, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. 
> 
> The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing.
> 
> The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net  (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here.
> 
> I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net?
> 
> Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. 
> 
> --MM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131211/760273aa/attachment.htm>