[governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC

[parminder]

On Sunday 17 March 2013 01:09 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> My 2 cents:
>
> 1) I was also surprised Michael was told he was not part of the 'academic community.'

Lee, if you are surprised, and see it as a 'wrong', then it is a public 
wrong that must be publicly corrected. That is our collective 
responsibility. It is not a private wrong to Michael. It is about whole 
categories, and abiding walls of inclusion and inclusion. It is about 
how seats in a public body are filled. As Allen says, it is about 
application of principles of democracy to multistakeholderism (MSism). 
This is required to show that MSism is not tribal stuff, but an evolved 
democratic mechanism. And if IGC does not have a stake in trying to show 
this, that would be very disappointing from the the point of view of 
IGC's avowed deep theoretical and practical interest in MSism, Remember, 
I made my first posting on the subject seeking the attention of 
theoreticians and practitioners of MSism, to this important issue of 
relationship between democracy and Msism. Practices become norms which 
become principles and then laws... As the main CS body in this space we 
will be failing in our duty if we do not raise the important questions 
in a timely manner that needs to be raised, and when it needs to be raised.

> 2) Speaking now as a founding member of ISOC..ok yeah I haven't paid my dues every year so sue me...I think the letter is a) misdirected; b) too long.
>
> 1 more cent: This is a CSTD issue; their mistake in not giving the folks defining TAC eligibility clear guidance. It seems they mistook TAC as an acronym for The Aged same old insiders boys Club. Oh well, live and learn.
>
> To summarize then, i too agree the letter to ISOC is..beside the point.
>
> I would support a short, sweet note asking CSTD for a bit more clarity before next year.

Well, then lets do that. IGC writes to CSTD seeking clarification on 
definition of 'tech and academic communities' (the plural is used in the 
UN GA resolution), from a point of view of how reps from these 
communities can and should be be chosen for multistakeholder 
participation. We can background it with the fact that there has been 
issues especially about the 'academic communities' part of this 
category, which part seem to have been left entirely unaddressed in 
practice. To anticipate an 'issue avoiding' response of the nature they 
leave it to the designated focal points, we should also ask the basis on 
which focal points are appointed and whether they are given any kind of 
guidance or not.

We can make the issue as a larger principles based one, and say that 
such clarifications are important as the practice of taking reps from 
other non gov stakeholders on important WGs/ committees etc is catching 
on, something that we are very glad to see..... and so on.

parminder

PS: I do however still think that ISOC having accepted the public duty 
of undertaking a public role - being the 'focal point' - should be 
answerable to public questions about its conduct/ procedures etc, and it 
is entirely appropriate for IGC to write to ISOC as well.

> best,
>
> Lee
>
> PS: Michael, no doubt there will be another 100 ways for you to contribute, if not this particular way. I would say - count your blessings : )
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org  [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 11:56 AM
> To: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
>
> In message<F2D3BDE0-753B-4BA5-8194-E50E419A86DD at uzh.ch>, at 11:06:34 on
> Sat, 16 Mar 2013, William Drake<william.drake at uzh.ch>  writes
>> It'd be great if each SG had clear and principles-based definitions and
>> boundaries, but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes.
>> Conflating the 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one
>> category just triples down on the problem.
> I hadn't really thought about this before, but do outsiders assume that
> the "academic" part of that stakeholder group are the people responsible
> for building out the Internet to Universities?
>
> eg JANET in the UK and TERENA in the Netherlands which talks about
> "fostering the development of Internet technology, infrastructure and
> services to be used by the research and education community."
>
> In other words the equivalent of the private sector ISP rather than
> users of the connectivity who also happen to be more interested in law
> than particle physics?
> --
> Roland Perry
>
>


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