[governance] Re: Formal public warning to Suresh

Suresh Ramasubramanian suresh at hserus.net
Sun Apr 7 20:03:29 EDT 2013 

Thank you. This warning still leaves the question I had askd unanswered, and contributes to prop up a set of actors that have consistently shown themselves as hostile to any constructive engagement to the technical community.   

If that viewpoint retains the support of the caucus coordinators, I would actually prefer to permanently withdraw from the caucus, while repeating my caution that the agenda being followed by it4change here is, longer term, entirely to the detriment of civil society at large.  

--srs (iPad)

On 08-Apr-2013, at 2:59, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
> 
> Hello Suresh
> 
> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
> environment”.
> 
> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
> constructive discussion and reflection. 
> 
> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be
> discussed in a non-hostile environment.
> 
> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
> somehow totally inappropriate.
> 
> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
> 
> Regards,
> Norbert and Sala
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> 
> 
> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
> another constituency chooses?
> 
> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
> positively to it.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>> Wow, Gotcha...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
> rote:
>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
>>>>> include.
>>>> 
>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
>>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
>> 
>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on
>> the WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have
>> heard from the concerned focal point.
>> 
>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
>> 
>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation
>> and publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder
>> rep selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this
>> case. This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
>> 
>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are
>> even two music schools involved there....
>> 
>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community,
>> what to say about the 'academic' part....
>> 
>> 
>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
>> 
>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
>> interpretation of their definition.
>> 
>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear -
>> even if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in
>> no case make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
>> out reach to.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
>>>> point for the WG on EC?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community
>>>>>> but not for
>>>>>> the UN system.....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal
>>>>>> point is erronoeus,
>>>>>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to
>>>>>> have simply been banished.
>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
>>>> 
>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the
>>>> final list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not
>>>> running a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above
>>>> definition of being engaged in 'day to day operational management
>>>> of the Internet'?
>>>> 
>>>> parminder

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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