[governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Sun Mar 17 07:53:40 EDT 2013 

Not how I read it.

Adam



On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:49 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 17 March 2013 05:04 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>> Parminder, your response to Constance was not written as one of an
>> individual.
>
>
> No it is not. It did, in an informal manner, pull in those of us who have
> been asking questions, and supported writing a letter to ISOC. And there is
> certainly more than one, right. Such a 'we' is often used in civil society
> discussions.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:23 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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

More information about the Governance mailing list