[governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

[Adam Peake]

Hi Carlos, are you talking about something I've written?  Because I'm
not saying anything of the kind.

Adam



On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Hmmm... we are certainly in a sort of crossroads here. Now a member of the
> academic community says to a member of organized civil society not to speak
> for CS...
>
> What is the proposed solution? A huge permanent assembly which would by
> magic bring everyone from everywhere in a giant unconference?
>
> Frankly...
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
>
> On 03/17/2013 08:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>> 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