[governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Fri May 13 08:30:10 EDT 2011
Fouad, how long have you been a MAG member?
More important, it would be good to know of the
nature of the threats you experienced during the
MAG meetings.
Adam
At 1:58 PM +0200 5/13/11, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>I believe its misunderstanding the text here.
>
>I did not blame the coordinators, I said the steps required to ensure
>that IGC communicates during open consultations and MAG meetings. Its
>a coordinator effort.
>
>Sensitive is a good aspect as it enables realization and
>understanding. Sensitivity to issues and situations is a very humane
>activity and characteristic.
>
>I do feel sad when alumnus MAG members do not share their knowledge or
>gather existing MAG members and work with them on formulating strategy
>and countering the attacks that happen.
>
>Its easy to point fingers but not easy to make things happen and it
>does take a certain sensitive mindset to make things happen.
>
>Thanks for identifying the sensitivity in my nature.
>
>Fouad
>
>On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>> Fouad, a shame you have taken such offence. I do know what it's like to be
> > criticized... I was a MAG member and coordinator for a couple of years. But
> > you are very sensitive. And blaming the
>coordinators makes no sense, just do
>> your part.
>>
>> More important though is something you say at the end of your long email:
>>
>>
>>> I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and it
>>> does hold value.
>>
>> Threats of what kind? Doesn't sound good at all. Please explain.
>>
>>
>> As for the rest, hope all the MAG members will remember what they said when
>> taking part in the nominating process and having names put forward for the
>> MAG. Not clear what any does anymore.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>> Kindly accept my apologies in advance for being direct as this is
>>> upsetting.
>>>
>>> Adam that would be arguable. I appreciate your coming back at me as if I
>>> or our MAG members may be faulty. I have
>>>never received a single response to
>>> my requests to the list when I requested for input. this happened in 2009,
>>> 2010 and now fingers being pointed in 2011 which is upsetting.
>>>
>>> At my end, i have taken IGC statements to the MAG meetings and attempted
>>> to the best of my knowledge. I have run after IGC members present taking
>>> ongoing advice on issues. Ginger, Parminder, Anriyette, Jovan, Ian,
>>> Bertrand, Miguel, George, Qusai, Marillia, Bill and the list goes on have
>>> all been very kind and helping.
>>>
>>> For the first time in 3 years you interacted with me in the last mag
>>> meeting on issues of participation. Sorry to
>>>say Avri has been right in many
> >> circumstances and so has Parminder that IGC does lack coordination. It is
>>> not time to point fingers but to help work out and strategize for the
>>> upcoming meeting.
>>>
>>> People here come from various organizations and backgrounds. In my case
>>> the developing state is my major concern and the continuous death and human
>>> right violation issues associated with Internet policy are the biggest to
>>> threat to me, my citizenry and many others in the developing world.
>>>
>>> I have witnessed that there is more interest in being part of mag by many
>>> then to actually tackle the issues relevant to IG. We have to get our act
>>> straight otherwise this is not belong us.
>>>
>>> Where is IGC's MAG working group thread or discussions, why haven't the
> >> coordinators ever initiated such a thing?
>Why isn't there a skype discussion
>>> group for Igc in open consultations and mag? Why aren't we coordinated
>>> whereas we take so much time to relate and repeat histories of policy
> >> institutions and arrangements.
>>>
>>> I hear you Adam but you do have the senior experience and exposure to help
>>> us from developing countries, work with us and support advice sharing for
>>> open consultations and mag meetings. Being cynical is fine but really I get
>>> upset with all my developed country CS peers to be arguing on issues of
> >> least relevance to the developing world and more on history and
>>> Process theory.
>>>
>>> If we can't be helped by you then don't ridicule us especially when we are
>>> a victim of our own severe life threatening
>>>situations and still struggling.
>>> I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and it
>>> does hold value.
>>>
>>> I wish you and many others would be more understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fouad Bajwa
>>> sent using my iPad
>>>
>>> On 12 May 2011, at 05:58 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be going to the meetings.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
>>>>> the end of this week.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>>>>>
>>>>> IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of
>>>>> interest.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have that the wrong way round.
>>>>
>>> > MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.
>>>>
>>>> When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc. It's
>>>> not been happening.
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>> '
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>>>>>
>>>>> Fouad
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM, <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the
>>> MAG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I
>>>>>> will be
>>>>>> working in the SOP workshops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key
>>>>>> and hot
>>>>>> policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not
>>>>>> miss
>>>>>> it! Katitza.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: katitza at eff.org
>>>>>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>>>>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia
>>>>>> Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>>>>>> Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>> Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>> Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC
>>>>>> support). I
>>>>>> will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best, Katitza.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>>>>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel
>>>>>> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
>>>>>> proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe
>>>>>> that our
>>>>>> main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues
>>>>>> (ex:
>>>>>> CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two
>>>>>> potential
>>>>>> shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business
>>>>>> sector
>>>>>> and the technical community, in my view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> >>>>>
>>>>>> A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
>>>>>> starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate
>>>>>> ideas,
>>>>>> reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF¹s
>>>>>> closet
>>>>>> for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
> >>>>> workshop, with half of it dedicated to a ³setting the scene² and an
>>>>>> overview
>>>>>> of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be
>>>>>> dedicated to
>>>>>> focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don¹t know if
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>> in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move
>>>>>> driven by
>>>>>> political considerations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other
>>>>>> groups
>>>>>> will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>>>>> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several
>>>>>> IGF
>>>>>> workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops on
>>>>>> IGF
>>>>>> improvement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marília
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our
>>>>>>>>>> workshop,
>>>>>>>>>> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0". Instead,
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>>>>>>>>> suggesting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that the three be merged.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>>
>>> >>>>>> desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>>>>>>>> have been requested not to repost it. Anyway, my notes of the
>>>>>>>> teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic
>>>>>>>> dialogue",
>>>>>>>> "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the much more focused agenda for our workshop. I'm not sure how
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> difficult to speculate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>>>>>>> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>>>>>>> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>>>>>>> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>>>>>>> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>>>>>>> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>>>>>>> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>>>>>>> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>>>>>>> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>>>>>>> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>>>>>>> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>> Norbert
>
>
>
>--
>Regards.
>--------------------------
>Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list