[governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca
Sun Mar 17 12:49:01 EDT 2013 

Wow, sorry, must have been another Adam Peake :)

--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 03/17/2013 10:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
> 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

More information about the Governance mailing list