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

[michael gurstein]

I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and
George) are posing. It isn't just an issue of representation or substance
but rather representation and substance or rather representation being
necessary for substance. Even though there appears to be some issues with
recognizing this in our current context.

 

I'm also copying this to BestBits and by implication the "steering
committee" (or whatever it is currently being called). 

 

So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly
accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings
within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be
given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited.

 

There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how
matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG
based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world.

 

These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations
pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect
different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an
overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be
achieved.

 

Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to
selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or
the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major
disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And
one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation
will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of
public visibility might be available.

 

The usual process within CS of opting for "identity" based modes of
"representivity" i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a
context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one
that we are currently dealing with.

 

I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on
overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet.  I think
it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on
how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever
representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so
that a united CS can move forward towards those goals.

 

Best,

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel
Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps

 

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/20131212/12a5b987/attachment.htm>