[governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update

[parminder]

On Friday 15 March 2013 12:16 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> inline responses
>
> On 14 Mar 2013, at 11:42, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org 
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> That is your opinion, but not one that many would recognise as a fact.

No, it is a fact. WSIS output documents recognise three stakeholder 
groups and two kinds of international organisations - inter gov and 
technical standards making. "Technical and academic community" is 
recognised as a cross cutting across the three stakeholder groups, and 
clearly not a separate stakeholder group. Relevant parts of Tunis Agenda 
is quoted below, whereby it is absolutely clear what is what. (Bold 
highlights added)

(begins)

            35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet
            encompasses both technical and public policy issues and
            should involve all stakeholders and relevant
            intergovernmental and international organizations. In this
            respect it is recognized that:

                 1.

                    Policy authority for Internet-related public policy
                    issues is the sovereign right of States. They have
                    rights and responsibilities for international
                    Internet-related public policy issues.

                 2.

                    The private sector has had, and should continue to
                    have, an important role in the development of the
                    Internet, both in the technical and economic fields.

                 3.

                    Civil society has also played an important role on
                    Internet matters, especially at community level, and
                    should continue to play such a role.

                 4.

                    Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should
                    continue to have, a facilitating role in the
                    coordination of Internet-related public policy issues.

                 5.

                    International organizations have also had and should
                    continue to have an important role in the
                    development of Internet-related technical standards
                    and relevant policies.

            36. We recognizethe valuable contribution by the *academic
            and technical communities within those stakeholder group**s*
            mentioned in paragraph 35 to the evolution, functioning and
            development of the Internet.


(ends)
'
It is clear that members of what is recognised as 'academic and 
technical community' can be working with governments, private sector or 
civil society (or indeed for international organisations) However, their 
identity for the present purpose is independent of that.

Therefore, indeed, selections for reps from 'academic and technical' 
community should have considered nominations of both 'technical' and 
academic persons, from anywhere and everywhere . It is absolutely wrong 
to limit it to those who work for technical bodies. It is also wrong to 
limit this category to technical people alone or to technical academics 
and exclude other academics connected to Internet matters. It seems that 
the focal point for nominations for this community has committed either 
both or at least the latter of these two errors.

The CSTD process has separate focal points for 'Inter gov and 
International bodies' (this phrase must be read in keeping with above 
quote from TA) and for 'technical and academic communities'. If ICANN 
wants to send a rep they should approach the 'inter gov and 
international bodies' focal point. If ISOC considers itself an 
international technical standards body on behalf of IETF, IAB etc, it 
should also approach this particular focal point. However, if it is 
mediating on behalf of the wider technical and academic community it 
needs to consider technical and academic people from anywhere and 
everywhere as long as relevance of their expertise to IG matters is 
established.


>
>> 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.
>
> Again, your opinion. I amongst others strongly disagree.

No, not Jeremy's opinion. This is as per WSIS outcome documents as above.
>
>> 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.
>
> Jeremy, I can also claim to be technical - I've had a technical career 
> in IT that went from Sysadmin to hired gun CIO; I've designed IP 
> networks including multi-country networks and programmed routers.
>
> Neither of us is a member of the technical community. You work for 
> consumer interests and I work in policy for a trade association. 
> Members of the technical community work for technical bodies.

Wrong again. TA is clear, technical and academic community members can 
be working in governments, private sector, civil society, anywhere......

parminder

>>
>> 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.
>
> I leave it to the community concerned to deal with this issue and the 
> questions arising from it, but I personally am unwilling to decide 
> judgment based upon one email from an interested party in the issue - 
> and simple fairness, I would have thought, should mean that nobody 
> else should do that either.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130315/326ed090/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