[governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps

[McTim]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Marilia Maciel
<mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental divergence
> of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - and it is
> certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason here is not a
> disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with how the HL panel
> matter has been conducted.
>
> Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since we
> have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of CS
> representation.

I'm not sure this is correct.  While they aren't perhaps
"representative" in the sense of the whole of CS coming together and
deciding on a set of stances on issues that need to be communicated,
if you look at the list of folks on the HLP:

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17nov13-en.htm

I see Mozilla Foundation, NLNet Labs, ISOC, Frank La Rue, Hudson
Institute, Wikipedia and ICANN as neither biz nor gov nor Intergov, so
there are CS (in the broader sense) folks on the Panel.



 "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a process
> to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. Just to see
> that effort being disregarded without any convincing explanation.

That remains to be seen.  IIUC, 1 more CS rep was NEVER going to be on
the London meeting.  Just not enough time.  In any case, I would
expect that if we were asked to add one more name, then they will
honor that in due course.


 To my
> knowledge, we will not have any representative there to convey any
> substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is invited as expert. What
> bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all organizations that participated
> in the NonCom process - were made fool in a way. If they wanted experts, not
> CS representatives, why not be clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is
> better than a unfulfilled yes.
>
> With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. I
> think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the substance.

Exactly, and we can convey our substantive issues via Mozilla or
Wikipedia or whichever non-profit we think will be receptive.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- 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