[governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sun Mar 17 01:40:32 EDT 2013
FWIW, I base my claim to participation in the T/A stakeholder group not on the basis of "what I am" (e.g. "guest lecturer of this or that…") but rather on "what I do" and specifically within the context of (one of) the definitions provided to me by the T/A focal point i.e. "contributing to building the Internet". It is towards the latter that I built my claim (and more importantly the claim of my colleagues) to having "contributed to building the Internet" by our (Community Informatics) academic and research work in facilitating access to and use of the Internet by the widest range of possible citizens and particularly the marginalized in rural areas and LDC's and among the disabled, Indigenous people, urban poor and so on.
This claim is built on the assertion that the Internet is not simply the "wires and protocols" but also its users and its uses. With the Internet evidently having reached a level of technical maturity and stability but with at least three-fourths of humanity still without Internet access or the opportunity of use, it is this latter knowledge and experience which may now be taking on particular value and significance.
Mike
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:08 PM
To: Ian Peter
Cc: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
I fully agree that the Academic community needs to respond if they are underrepresented or marginalized in this process.
This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that there is a broad cross section in academia with civil society - just as there's a broad cross section with the tech community and civil society, and tech community and academia (I could claim to be an academic, thanks to a guest researcher role I have at a malaysian university) :)
Driving divisions in these communities by dangling a carrot of dubious taste and value [being representation in this process] strikes me as a trifle rich though.
--srs (iPad)
On 17-Mar-2013, at 10:32, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
I think I could have predicted most peoples responses on this issue as the lines and allegiances are fairly well worn. But it is clear there will be no civil society consensus statement on this issue.
But perhaps it is the academic community who may wish to respond. If their right to representation is decided by someone effectively outside their group who makes having been an internet pioneer a precondition for selection, they have a right to feel disenfranchised. Perhaps this marriage of technical and academic needs to be separated, with each choosing their own smaller set of representatives. The many academics here may wish to respond in some way.
(as may other individuals in various capacities of course)
Ian Peter
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:41 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
Avri is stating facts here. That letter was childishly - even petulantly worded. And isoc people are here and able to respond if they choose to.
Though, the apparent dysfunction here makes me unsurprised if ISOC, APC and other large civil society orgs choose to have an articulate a position that is separate / independent / different from the one here, where I can't see consensus at any rate - except among - as someone (David Allen?) pointed out, a minority of posters here - which itself is a tiny minority in civil society.
--srs (iPad)
On 17-Mar-2013, at 10:07, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
Dear Avri
There is no gotcha and laying traps here. This is an avoidable personalisation of a political dialogue, and highly accusatory. This is officially a space for political deliberations, and questions and cross-questions are normally accepted methods of political deliberation. Behind this methodology lies a firm democratic belief that we as political/ public actors are responsible to the public for our held and expressed perspectives, and we must explain and justify them when asked for (and since there are no mechanisms for all public to be speaking at the same time, it would always be some one person or the other asking the questions on behalf of the public) . We are all responsible in this manner because being in some kind of public roles - our perspectives impact, or at least can potentially have an impact, on others, on all public.
On whether 'their' process should be left to 'them', even without any interrogation of who are 'they', and questioning whether the need to have due representation of 'tech and academic communities' is being fulfilled; I am sure if CSTD had picked up say the Beijing State Technical University (hypothetical name) to choose the 'tech and acad communities'' reps, and the latter had laid the condition that all nominations should come from people who are experts on 'information security' the caucus would have had a lot to say - both to the CSTD and the designated focal point. Unless of course the designated focal point was to be considered entirely illegitimate to be in that role - wholly or partially, whereby we may have on that ground refused to even communicate to them.
It is in fact because IGC considers ISOC largely to be legitimate in a, partial or full, role as 'technical and academic communities' focal point, and we consider it as a friendly entity, that some of us have proposed that we write to them on this matter. I think that all the strong views that we should not at all write to the ISOC on this is just beign over-protective of ISOC, which protection I dont think they need at all. ISOC is rather big, powerful and capable to be able to deal with such things on their own.
parminder
On Saturday 16 March 2013 08:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hmm,
a gotcha question.
can't leave one of those unanswered
or else it festers
and becomes a long term
deep infection.
at least when i write a message to this list i know it will come under attack
so the next day I wake up and with dread check to see what the attack of the day is.
but let me look it this as my first cup of coffee is being prepared
(brb, need to start boiling the water)
In a loose sense,
yes, I consider myself a civil society person
who is a technical person who
does consider herself as part of the Itc
sort of
(-;
even if srs did not
- so perhaps I am less so than i thought -
is my experience stale and my membership waning?
is this a clue?
)
And I used to be a functionary of sorts within the IETF
(a WG chair and an RFC editor - even have my name on a few RFCs)
But lately have been more IRTF involved than IETF
And I am not sure they ever accepted me as one of them
(but that might just be a personal hangup)
Is IRTF technical community
or research community?
(brb, need to grind the beans
- some excellent Tanzanian beans a friend gave me)
but lately have not had a technical gig
that funded me to attend the IETF
so only participate in some sessions remotely.
(brb, the water is boiled.)
well i do technical research on DTN.
More so when I have funding than when I don't
(at this point I don't,
bummer
it is amazing how much funding i don't have)
(brb, time for second pour)
my last RFC was on DTN routing
but that is research
(
ah, coffee,
will be awake soon
want to be done by then
)
and i do teach a bit about internet technologies
and Internet standards
but that is education
So, am i a member of the Itc?
or a fellow traveller?
or what?
Would I consider applying to their focal point for a spot?
No, I wouldn't.
Of that I am sure.
Why?
I don't quite buy the argument of employment as key.
If i was independently wealthy (don't I wish?)
I might be attending all the IETF and W3C and
even NANOG and ARIN and ... meetings I could.
I would be volunteering to edit docs
and probably would get to chair stuff.
I like chairing stuff - building consensus is fun.
and would always be working on some ID or RFC or other document
and at that point, even without employment,
yes, I might have had no qualms asking their focal point
for consideration,
as i asked the Civil society focal point and the IGC
in my current circumstances.
(
then gain
if i was independently wealthy i might be an activist
working on some grand goal with full focus
not distracted by my need to use my meager talents
to make a living
)
But at that point I would have been steeped in their concerns,
more than Civil society concerns,
not on the periphery as I am now.
so no, i guess i don't really consider myself an
active Itc member for the purposes of
something as critical as CSTD ECWG
it is a hat i think i own, and think i can wear
but it not a hat i am currently wearing enough
to ask for such recognition.
so now that i am awake, i have figured out my answer.
yes, in my opinion
I am CS
and I am Itc
I am a CS with Itc skills and affinities
i am an Itc who works mostly in a CS context
but i am most actively CS
while I am not so active Itc
so i guess the criteria,
for me qua me and my identifications,
(
and believing each individual
for each Ig function
should only get one bite of the apple
)
would not feel right
considering myself Itc for the purposes of CSTD ECWG.
i would feel like i was being intrusive
(
unless
of course,
i was doing it to be transgressive
)
my focus for now is the CS perspective.
though i am an Itc fellow traveller.
i think i am awake now.
i have finished drinking my coffee now
thank you for the opportunity to do a bit of saturday morning introspection.
cheers,
avri
Ps. i still think their criteria is their affair. A focal point was picked by the CSTD chair. as with ours, they picked their way of working in a hurried situation and while as an individual i may form an opinion, i still don't think those criteria are the IGC's problem. As individuals of course, we have to freedom to comment on anything. Michael's application to them and his reaction is totally his affair. I just think the IGC should stay out of it.
Now, did i step on any hidden traps setting up the next gotcha? OMGs
-----
ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers
brb - be right back
CS - Civil society
CSTD ECWG - Commission on Science and Technology for Development Enhanced Cooperation Working Group
DTN - Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networking
Fellow Traveller - some one who ascribes to many of a group principles and missions but isn't a card carrying member
ID - Interent Draft
Ig - Interent governance
IETF - Internet engineering Task force
IRTF - Internet Research Task Force
Itc - Interent Technical Ccommunity
NANOG - North American Network Operators' Group
RFC - AN IETf/IRTF Request for Comment that is not longer a request for comment but is more of a request for implementation or something else all together.
RIPE - Réseaux Internet Protocol Européen
W3c - World Wide Web Consortium
On 16 Mar 2013, at 00:18, parminder wrote:
Also, Avri, perhaps you can also tell us whether you consider yourself as a member of the technical community or not. (and if you do not. how do you define the membership of technical community). McTim BTW refused to answer this direct question which I directed at him yesterday. Your replies may just give the IGC some valuable food for a good discussion.
parminder
On Saturday 16 March 2013 12:45 PM, parminder wrote:
On Saturday 16 March 2013 09:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I do not support sending a letter.
If indeed they are being treated as another Stakeholder group, I do not see what job we have interfering with their selection processes. Just as we would be highly offended if they told Civil Society how to select candidates.
I am not making a judgement on any candidate or on their process, which I know nothing about. Or even on the issue of whether they should be treated as a separate Stakeholder group. I just think it is not our business to comment on their process or criteria.
Avri
Are you saying that if the business community focal point was to send out a message that only representatives of businesses that have an annual turnover in excess of $ I billion may apply to be considered for for private sector membership of the CSTD WG, we as in the IGC should have nothing to say?
Or, even if UN comes up with a process whereby government membership CSTD WG is based on the GDP of a country, the IGC should have nothing to say?
This is the problem with a certain kind of MSism - a very poor conception of the fact that all political processes are aimed at a common public interest. Accordingly, all public actors involved in the process are accountable to the people, and to every and any other public actor...... This is how I see this kind of MSism causing grievous hurt to democracy, and all tenets of public life.
When you say that the focal points for chosing 'technical and academic community' representatives have no accountability to a civil society group and we cannot ask questions from them, you are saying that they have no accountability to the public. I am really shocked to hear this. I have no idea what your conception of civil society really is, and those of others who have come up with similar views. I think we as IGC need to figure out who we are, and what we think civil society is, and what all are its purposes etc......
I will like to have a clear articulation from this group, if needed through a vote, whether we really think that focal points for selecting reps of different stakeholders for a public body have no accountability to the public, and whether a civil society group can or cannot legitimately ask transparency and accountability related questions from them.
This point of process perhaps must be clarified before we go into the substance of our questions to the focal point for 'tech and academic communities'.
parminder
avri
On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
Following on from discussions in the main thread on this topic (I'm starting a new thread to improve visibility), I have quickly drafted a letter that outlines the concerns that a number of us have expressed:
http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/isoc-letter
You can make changes in-line, or you can make comments using the chat pane on the right hand side.
--
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 | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130316/e3786d02/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list