[governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update

Fri Mar 15 01:55:08 EDT 2013

Dear All,

I think this is a serious matter. Let me argue why. This group, and 
perhaps much of IG civil society, has been rather focussed on 
multistakeholderism as a new participatory form of democracy 
(hopefully!). Now, it is easy to say that civil society, business and 
technical comunity should be at the policy making table or at least 
involved substantially. But the immediate question then is; who among 
these groups should be allowed in? Representivity therefore is the most 
key issue that participatory democracy and multistakeholderism (MSism) 
must constantly deal with. Since it is the contention of this movement 
that elections  *do not exhaust" public representation, and that they 
need to be complemented by other forms, it must show how it adds to 
public representativity and, rather, does not take away from it.

This is the key legitimacy question for MSism and*/I invite the numerous 
theoreticians and practitioners of MSism in this group to engage/* with 
the episode that Michael has been involved in as below in light of this 
key legitimacy question fro MSism - how do we select representatives, 
when indeed the occasion comes that not everyone can be seated at the 
table, not even everyone who turns up.

I think ISOC, or a specific office holder of ISOC, as the designated 
focal point for technical community owes it to the public to describe 
the complete process that was followed, including the definitions of 
'technical and academic community', specifically the 'academic' part, 
that were employed.

Multistakeholderism can succeed only within a clear normative framework 
(and my biggest problem with MSism as often practised is its 
normlessness). We must lay down principles of inclusion and exclusion, 
of selection of representatives for committees / WGs etc.

BTW, IT for Change, and also Indian government, in their submissions to 
the working group has proposed some clear normative guidelines for 
selection of MS representatives (for the MAG). Some of them are in the 
final report, along with other good suggestions. I quote below the 
relevant parts from the report of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements 
to the IGF.

(quote begins)

        20/. The proposed Selection Process for the MAG:/

        (a) The three non-governmental stakeholder groups should propose
        lists of candidates that should be balanced, including in terms
        of gender distribution and in reflecting the diversity of
        geographical distribution. This will enable a wide range of
        diversity within the MAG, especially those groups which have
        been underrepresented in the MAG, and be sufficiently large to
        provide some flexibility when selecting MAG members.

        (b) Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the process
        that works best for their own culture and methods of engagement
        and which will ensure their self-management.

        (c) The contribution of lists of proposed candidates for each
        stakeholder group should not be restricted to one particular body.

        (d)The final selection of candidates shall continue to be made
        by the UN Secretary-General.

        21. /During the Selection Process the following measures should
        be kept in mind:/

        (a) The process of selection of MAG members should be inclusive,
        predictable, transparent and fully documented.

(quote ends)

Since the above is a CSTD WG rec, although specifically for MAG 
selection, it is obvious that these principles should be followed for 
other comparable forums and processes, and the present one is certainly so.

So, lets have the full documentation and publication of the selection 
process. We will also like to know if the full documentation of process 
was forwarded to the CSTD chair along with recommended names.

Since, in my view, this is a fundamental issue to and of MSism , I 
propose that IGC takes a clear position on this. If needed we should 
follow up with letters to where ever we need to send them.

parminder

On Thursday 14 March 2013 04:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 14/03/13 18:12, michael gurstein wrote:
>> Having indicated how I could be deemed suitable under each of the above
>> categories I was then told that I did not meet the criteria of "having
>> contributed to the building of the Internet".
>>
>> Some 20+ of my colleagues including computer scientists, International
>> officials, academics, researchers most from LDC's provided written
>> confirmation and support from the 1500 members of the Community Informatics
>> Research Networks, indicated how in their opinion I had in fact, through my
>> some 20 years of work making the Internet accessible and usable by the
>> widest range of possible users, "contributed to building the Internet" (if
>> we understand the Internet to include the "users" as well as the "wires").
>>
>> At that point the criteria was further redefined as an "interpretation
>> (where) the technical and academic community includes individuals who have
>> technically built the Internet".
>
> Oh, lordy lordy.  This is too much.  Doubtless there are many 
> academics on this list, holding degrees other than computer science, 
> who will be interested to learn that they are not qualified to be a 
> member of what they might reasonably have supposed was their own 
> stakeholder group.  Thanks for bringing this to light, Michael.
>
> Conceptually, of course, there is no justification for the technical 
> and academic communities to be their own stakeholder group.  WGIG 
> considered that question, and explicitly decided they should not be.  
> The WSIS output documents are a bit ambiguous, but I've put the case 
> that they too describe only three separate stakeholder groups.
>
> Nevertheless, the technical community have carved out a separate 
> stakeholder role for themselves just on the basis of their historical 
> (and ongoing) role in the management of critical Internet resources 
> and standards.  Whilst that is an important role, it is hard to see it 
> providing a coherent conceptual basis to constitute them as a separate 
> stakeholder group.
>
> I've been called out for being too critical of the technical community 
> lately, but actually I /am/ a member of the technical community; 
> former board member of ISOC-AU, Secretary of Australia's first 
> (non-profit) national ISP, an open source software developer, have 
> been a system administrator, and former manager of two IT consultancies.
>
> So I'm by no means an enemy of the technical community, I'm just 
> calling the shots as I see them; and the treatment you have received, 
> Michael, seems to me another example of the wrong approach being taken 
> at a high level by the technical community's self-appointed 
> representatives.
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: 
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130315/841c15ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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