[governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
Fouad Bajwa
fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Fri May 13 10:43:46 EDT 2011
McTim, threats don't happen on public record. They are made by reps of
other stakeholder groups trying to create fear usually targeted to
come to play in the country I come from.
These have been made on issues like but not limited to ICANN,
Information intermediary workshops, critical internet resources issues
with regards to my country etc.
I won't be sharing these in much more detail in public since the shame
is on me and I am very sensitive.
-- FoO
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad
____________________________________________________________
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