[governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

[Adam Peake]

Hi Norbert,

<http://www.igcaucus.org/charter>

"Duties of Coordinators

The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to
facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to
reach consensus whenever possible.

In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two
coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject
to an appeal as described below.

The coordinators are also responsible for defining and assigning any
other tasks that need to be carried out in support of the caucus such
as list management, web site management or support of other tools.
These decisions will require the advice of the membership and can be
appealed to the appeals team."

Coordinators are named coordinators for a reason.  They are not
representatives, they do not speak on members' behalf (unless to
express agreed positions.)

I suggest you withdraw the statement below.  If you think it's
important, then follow procedures and seek the caucus' support before
sending personal statements with your coordinator "hat" on.

Adam



On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> [I'm writing this email in my role as a co-coordinator of the Civil
> Society Internet Governance Caucus, i.e. "with coordinator hat on".]
>
> Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer at isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> For this reason I am also sending a copy [..] to the Civil Society
>> group.
>
> Thank you for that; this is very much appreciated.
>
>> 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.
>
> Let me first point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong when an
> academic becomes a highly respected member of a civil society group,
> and when some consider him a leader (civil society is so diverse that
> no-one can reasonable expect to be considered a leader of civil
> society as a whole).
>
> Having been involved in the selection of the civil society nominees for
> the recent WSIS+10 meeting, I would like to further comment on what
> you have written above.
>
> Mr. Gurstein is a non-technical academic. At the recent WSIS+10 meeting,
> there was no process available for non-technical academics to apply for
> nomination for a speaking slot on the basis of representing a community
> of non-technical academics.
>
> The only way in which he could therefore be considered and potentially
> accepted was as a civil society nominee.
>
> By contrast, in the UN General Assembly resolution that contains the
> decision to establish a Working-Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> (A/RES/67/195), “technical and academic communities” is recognized as
> an explicit stakeholder category, and consequently the Chair of the
> CSTD has appointed a corresponding “focal point”.
>
> I personally thought this to be a very positive development, and an
> appropriate recognition of the important work of the various academic
> communities.
>
>> I do believe, however, that unsuccessful
>> applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency
>> shopping”
>
> Mr. Gurstein did not “engage in ‘constituency shopping’”.
>
> He simply selected, in each case, among the available processes the
> one that would reasonably appear to be the best fit to his particular
> situation.
>
>> and question the entire process.
>
> By denying his right to question the process, you have just committed a
> human rights violation.
>
>> 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.
>
> I find it absolutely astounding that you have chosen, in this
> roundabout way via the Tunis Agenda, to interpret the term “technical
> and academic communities” of the UN General Assembly resolution that
> contains the decision to establish a Working-Group on Enhanced
> Cooperation (A/RES/67/195), to mean “community of organizations
> and individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational
> management of the Internet and who work within this community”.
>
> Please note in particular the plural “communities” in the UN General
> Assembly resolution and the singular in your interpretation.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert Bollow
> one of the coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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