[governance] tick, tick, tick...

Parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Sep 10 12:19:04 EDT 2007 

Adam

>and I think best
> if the caucus coordinators also didn't
> participate as panelists, that's also been a bit
> of a tradition.

I have no idea about this tradition. How and when was it established? And to
keep me informed, please also let me know of all others traditions
associated with coordinator-ship - like being members of officially
empowered committees and working groups where they speak for themselves, and
of holding positions in important IG institutions which themselves are often
important subjects of discussion etc etc :-) 

Abstinence of MAG members is entirely another matter because they are
supposed to choose speakers, and this rule has self-evident justification,
and applies in every nomcom. 

I am not too eager to be a speaker, except for the fact that it is my
organization that suggested the agenda of 'alternative business models for
access' and 'public and private finance for access' in the access theme
which were on the agenda till this latest draft. And its removal without
assigning any reason is most objectionable, and ideologically motivated,
compromising the neutrality of whoever decides these issues. I want to make
sure that the access panel just doesn’t one-sidedly parrot the neo-liberal
line of telecom, as it is obviously the intention of some powerful parties.
Removal of these issues is even more unjustifiable because they are from the
language adopted by WSIS. So much for upholding WSIS principles. Obviously,
what are useful WSIS principles and what are not, is itself decided by some
people on their own.

I am in contact with a few experts in the area of community based/ owned
access models (on which UNDP is doing a lot of work), but still not sure if
they will attend (such is the dominant scene at the IGF). I am trying my
best to get them over and suggest them as speakers in the access panel... If
that doesn’t happen, I am fine to make a general appeal to anyone who will
be at IGF and be willing to speak on this issue. If not, I would step up and
offer myself as a speaker for the access panel.

Incidentally, while we are on the subject can I inquire of you, as a CS
member of MAG, (and of others on the list) what criterion is used to remove
such perfectly balanced agenda items as have been removed from the 'access'
agenda theme? Was there any opposition? What is your personal opinion on
this? Or is access important only as promotion of telecom market models of
MNCs, and alternative do not count, even as an item for discussion? Or is
such 'hair-splitting' in the area of 'access' just not important, and access
topic is good only to be used as a counterfoil to CIR issue?

Since you have freely suggested traditions for co-coordinators, I think it
will also be good to set up traditions of IGC nominated MAG members replying
to questions on IGC list that relate directly to their MAG work.

Best

Parminder 



________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 5:24 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] tick, tick, tick...
> 
> I agree with this suggestion.  It's a waste of
> time to suggest people not knowing if they will
> be in Rio or not.
> 
> Also, the overall theme is development, people
> from developing nations a big plus.
> 
> Last year there was something of an unwritten
> rule that advisory group members wouldn't join
> panels (only one did I think), and I think best
> if the caucus coordinators also didn't
> participate as panelists, that's also been a bit
> of a tradition.
> 
> Parminder, have you and Vittorio spoken with
> Markus about how he expects speakers to be
> selected once the names are in?  And could you
> also ask him about the opening ceremony -- it's
> currently shown as a 2.5 hour session, how many
> CS speakers will be required, and specific
> topics?  I have asked him, but better coming from
> the caucus.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> At 12:14 PM +0200 9/10/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >May I repeat the suggestion that speakers
> >participating in workshops be considered in a
> >first round : we are sure they will be there and
> >they will be harder to oppose.
> >
> >Workshop organizers in each track could be
> >invited to suggest names, to alleviate the
> >burden of Parminder and Vittorio, as well as
> >provide some transparency in the process.
> >
> >Best
> >
> >Bertrand
> >
> >On 9/10/07, Parminder
> ><<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>parminder at itforchange.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >  > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say,
> discussing
> >>  whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic
> >>  at IGF.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a
> >scheme for this within the next 24 hours.
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >________________________________________________
> >Parminder Jeet Singh
> >IT for Change, Bangalore
> >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> ><http://www.ITforChange.net>www.ITforChange.net
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >____________________
> >Bertrand de La Chapelle
> >
> >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> >
> >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir
> >les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
> >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

More information about the Governance mailing list