[governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

Sun Mar 17 07:23:42 EDT 2013

On Sunday 17 March 2013 04:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Parminder, please don't speak for civil society or for members of the caucus.
>
> Adam

Adam, please dont jump to your conclusions, I have no authority to speak 
for IGC, or civil society, and I know it very well. I have enough 
experience in this area to know this, and conduct myself properly. What 
makes you think i am trying to do what you are alleging I am. It is 
great that a civil society member cannot conduct a simple dialogue with 
a representative of ISOC withour your kind of over zealous 
protectiveness interfering, and helping make a spectacle of all of us. I 
know that from what will follow this particular exchange you may have 
effectively killed the dialogue I was trying to make. Congrats.... 
parminder

>
>
>
> 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