[governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Mon Apr 8 04:28:13 EDT 2013
This is not a question of content at all, Sala. It is a question of neutrality - which, right now, I am not questioning, though I do ask that the coordinators introspect before taking any future action in such a matter.
Please allow me to summarize the situation.
1. The credentials of a person nominated to represent another stakeholder group were questioned, without - as it turns out - doing any due diligence at all (as simple as a google search that would show him eminently qualified to represent that community)
2. The question was raised as to whether
a. The people objecting had bothered to do such due diligence
b. Whether they had any locus standi to raise such an objection at all -
3. The coordinators did not, as I see it, respond by objecting to this questioning of credentials. Instead, they responded by objecting to the manner in which this questioning of credentials was opposed. Which leads to the question of whether they actually support a note from the caucus to the technical and academic community, rejecting this candidate - as is apparently being proposed
If you solely focus on specific words and expressions used in the discussion, and yet passively acquiesce in something as pernicious as the caucus interfering in the affairs of an entirely different stakeholder community, there is something very wrong with this picture.
To reverse this situation, how would we feel if another stakeholder group - say a government or intergovernmental entity - objected to a particular individual being selected as a representative of civil society for any multistakeholder process? Or perhaps if they emailed the caucus asking that this selection be overturned?
--srs (iPad)
On 08-Apr-2013, at 13:29, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Warm greetings from Beijing. I trust that you are all in excellent health and spirits. As you can imagine, moderating discussions on the IGC is challenging at best. There are many considerations and challenges for those that participate.
>
> One of the challenges of being part of an online community is communication. One of the roles of a moderator is to constantly monitor discussions and to allow for free and open discussions and in allowing for diverse views to be heard. This is critical, to this end, at all times, there is a need to foster inclusion.
>
> One of the challenges that we have had on the list is to ensure that this occurs. To this end, there is a joint responsibility for list members or subscribers to think about the manner and style of posting. Does it encourage dialogue? Is the post addressing the issues raised?
>
> By all means, we encourage debate and robust discussion but that can certainly happen without attacking a person.
>
> In this instance, there has been prior dialogue (private) and there has been since last year, a series of attempts to communicate this but a clear pattern continues to emerge.
>
> I regret that people feel that the reprimand was in bad taste and it was not intended to cause people to feel bad that they do not want to post and freely discuss but to simply send a strong message to the list that discussions need to be civil without attacking persons.
>
> Milton and others raised important points as well and I would like to acknowledge your concerns. To this end, I would like to suggest that we create a committee to determine whether content is offensive or not. This may mean amendment of the Charter to reflect this. Clearly, there are mixed reactions on competency of moderators to judge the nature of content.
>
> Let's turn this into an opportunity for positive change.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Sala
>
> P.S in my individual capacity
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Apr 08 08:31, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Milton.
>>>
>>> I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But
>>> the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,
>>> certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable
>>> in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to everyone
>>> in the same way.
>>>
>>> A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some
>>> people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more
>>> inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their analysis,
>>> and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.
>>>
>>> It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that
>>> are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express
>>> themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those
>>> with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre
>>> intended to capture and convince those around them.
>>>
>>> I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) - and
>>> recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the
>>> hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions. But
>>> when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and
>>> intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile
>>> environment.
>>>
>>> As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people
>>> offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the
>>> only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's
>>> process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.
>>>
>>> Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list
>>> discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a
>>> relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is
>>> agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -
>>> even if no consensus was reached.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> Norbert:
>>>> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>>>>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
>>>>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>>>> Cc: IGC
>>>>> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
>>>>>
>>>>> [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
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- 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