[governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

[Adam Peake]

Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the caucus.

Adam



On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Constance,
>
> Thank you for your response. There a few other points i'd like to raise but
> for the present, quickly, just the following two.
>
> Good that you clearly state the criteria you used to identify who would be
> considered as members of the 'technical and academic community' for the
> purpose of selection to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation in the following:
>
> "......community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the
> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this
> community." (Constance)
>
> One of the main purposes of our proposed letter to you/ISOC was to obtain
> this definition used by you. So thanks again. BTW, this definition seem not
> to match the understanding of most people  in our current discussion on the
> IGC, but on that later.
>
> Secondly, since you say; "...it is unclear how attacks between different
> stakeholder groups can support multistakeholderism." (Constance)
>
> Would you help us to identify what in the proposed draft of the letter, or
> even in the recent discussion on the list, do you consider as 'attack on a
> stakeholder group'.
>
> Would you, for instance, consider a letter seeking clarity from a UN body on
> some process issues, or even raising concerns about some process issues, as
> an attack on that UN body, or on governments generally? IGC has often done
> such things.
>
> Best regards, parminder
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday 17 March 2013 02:48 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
>>
>> Dear Anriette,
>>
>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil Society
>> for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on Enhanced
>> Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the importance we
>> attach to the relationships we have been able to build across various
>> stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this reason I am also sending
>> a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group.
>>
>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
>> has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a move underway to
>> question the representation of the technical and academic community in the
>> Working Group and we presume that this was triggered by the discussions
>> surrounding the non-selection of Michael Gurstein.
>>
>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our
>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our community.
>> The names put forward were subject to considerable discussion as well as
>> oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil Society and the Business
>> community (including their focal points). The criteria used were shared with
>> all interested individuals as well as with the UN.
>>
>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria and
>> his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to the
>> Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up until February
>> 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society and spoke as one of
>> its leaders and representatives at the recent WSIS+10 meeting. I also
>> understand that he initially expressed an interest to be endorsed by the
>> Civil Society to participate to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
>> Cooperation, which also leads to confusion. For purpose of transparency, I
>> mentioned his interest to the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the
>> representatives of the various stakeholder groups. I do believe, however,
>> that unsuccessful applicants in one process should not engage in
>> “constituency shopping” and question the entire process.
>>
>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a
>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group and
>> always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is understood that
>> the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be discussed; new groups
>> could even appear tomorrow. However, the context was clear and it referred
>> to the community of organizations and individuals who are involved in the
>> day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work within this
>> community.  This category manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other
>> academics had been involved in WSIS right from the start but identified
>> themselves with Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN
>> since 2005.
>>
>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder groups
>> can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the technical
>> and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or even for its
>> representatives to be appointed by governments contradicts the
>> multistakeholder principle that we are all attached to. Furthermore, I
>> believe no group should attempt to impose control upon another, nor should
>> any group be beholden to another.  This would be the end of
>> multistakeholderism.
>>
>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a delicate
>> plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing it with its own
>> culture, and processes. The technical community’s work is based on open and
>> inclusive development processes. In this spirit, the Internet Society has
>> always demonstrated its commitment to open and inclusive policy dialogues.
>> We systematically advocate for the inclusion of Civil Society in arenas
>> where critical discussions are being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also
>> support the participation of individuals from all stakeholder groups in
>> Internet governance discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.).
>>
>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups are
>> key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to working
>> with all of you in this spirit.
>>
>> Thank you and best regards,
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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