[bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees

[William Drake]

Good morning

On Dec 26, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Guru गुरु <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

> On 12/25/2013 06:47 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> On Dec 25, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>> 
> snip
>>> It would be useful for you to reflect on how much this ideology played a role in your being selected for the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, while Milton Muller (who is known to speak his mind without worrying about 'being nice') was actually one of the CS nominees to the High Level Panel.
>>> 
>>> (this may seem below the belt, request you to reflect on it in a non-personal manner)
>> 
>> No, it is entirely what I would expect of what you and what Parminder would call “your ilk”—a pathetic attempt at misrepresentation of readily knowable facts in order to score cheap political points.  
>> 
> 
> The readily knowable / public facts are - in response to a request, IGC nominated two people and you did not figure in that list.

This has been explained in plain english repeatedly. There are different people playing different roles and nobody seems to be confused about the matter except a couple of people here who are looking hard for something to stir up for whatever private reasons.  If you are truly unable to understand the press release that lays out who is involved in what capacity, read it again.   If that’s not enough for you, write to Fadi or President Ilves, it’s their party, they selected the people. I’m neither your representative nor their spokesman and I won’t be responding to any more troll ploys about the panel.

> What is the 'expertise' for which you were selected, which the people nominated could not have provided?

Again, no connection, RTFM.

> Quite a few people on this list raised this uncomfortable issue.

It wasn’t clear that MM actually managed to confuse “quite a few people.”  Just a couple clueless +1s etc.

> Abuse is no substitute for argument and your language suggests you have none.

I wasn’t making an argument and certainly wasn’t engaging in abuse, but thanks again for your lame and transparent efforts at redirection, misrepresentation, and constructing an other for you and your ilk to rally around and stone.  Actually, all I was doing was agreeing with Avri and Jeanette that ability to conduct oneself in a professional manner and work with others is a good criteria for evaluating nominees, particularly since “CS” as it’s instantiated here has in the past managed to do the opposite, resulting in a good deal of self-margalization.  Luckily there are others willing to cary on and try to move the ball forward. So do what you like, BB is on its way to following the caucus down the tube for the same reasons, and if that’s your preference, do it.
> 
>> In any event, this enlightening exchange underscored the concerns Avri raised your criteria's likely abuse in the service of a narrow ideology and the value of considering representatives who are inclined to interact with others in a civil and professional manner.
> 
> To use Avri's phrase of a 'tent view', we all agree the current tent itself under-represents many views. Instead of expanding that view, you are proposing using the 'narrow ideology' of club membership to further exclude those who ask uncomfortable questions. 

I propose no such thing.  I propose being civil rather than behaving like a troll.
> 
> This can be  a setback to CS and denies its important role of accountability seeking, which has become even more important in the post Snowden scenario.

Wait, you forgot to reach for some other hot buttons laying around .  How about accountability is even more important at a time when a small group claims to be CS and the tribune of all the worlds’  disposed but then goes into meetings to fight form intergovernmental regulation and against multistakeholder participation. and for the positions of a government that wants to impose stringent 19th century regulations on the Internet, when it’s not busy outlawing homosexuality and other great stuff.  Certainly this makes accountability and transparency an issue as much as a suggestion that people be able to conduct themselves professionally?

Bye
> 
> Guru.
> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> *******************************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>>   www.williamdrake.org
>> ********************************************************************
>> 
> 


*******************************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
********************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131227/77d80b24/attachment.htm>