[governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

[michael gurstein]

Irrespective of the largely "interest"ed and diversionary chaff currently
being circulated in this discussion I need hardly point out to this group
that what is really at stake is a significant test of the current
multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance and as an alternative
approach to democratic decision making in the Information Society.

By any reasonable measure this approach is in this, and I believe
significant, instance failing this test in its transparency, accountability,
even-handedness, inclusiveness and thus broad acceptance and legitimacy.

What is perhaps most disturbing is the apparent failure on the part of
proponents to even recognize that there are issues and to indicate that
measures might be taken to integrate the concerns and thus evolve the
approach into more generally acceptable modes of operation.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:16 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:52 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:
>
> On Sunday 17 March 2013 06:22 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> However, on Michael's issue ;
>
> 1. I have no idea why are you, and some others,  being deliberately 
> blind to the fact that Michael applied to the academic community part 
> of the 'technical and academic communities' and not the technical
community part.
>
>
>
> And of course, Adam, you want to take *no note* of the fact that the 
> criteria Constance gave us which ISOC applies to chose reps from 
> 'technical and academic community' which is, and I quote
>
>
> "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"
>
> simply and completely removes any academic representation, altogether.


No, it doesn't.

Are you forgetting all the REN folks perhaps?  All the Academics who take
part i IETF activities/RIR activities? (For the record the European RIR came
together by a group of academics, mostly physicists, and was supported by
TERENA for several years).


So no
> academic rep at all in the 'tech and academic community'!!! Does it 
> not sound strange?


It would if it were true, but since it is untrue..


 I bet it would to anyone, other than, perhaps, those just too
> committed to certain causes and interests.... So, without ceremony 
> ISOC simply sweeps away all and any possibility of due academic 
> representation that WSIS and UN GA asked for, and we all are expected 
> to keep quite because ISOC are our friends . That sounds very very strange
to me.

sounds strange to me as well, mostly because it is not true.

>
> The ISOC criteria in fact also removes all the technical people who 
> may not be managing "day-to-day operational management of the Internet 
> " in the employment of a few organisations that we all know. And I 
> know so many technical people who should be considered in 'technical 
> community' and whose expertise should be used by UN bodies, but who do 
> not work for an ICANN or ISOC, IETF or RIRs. (Including those who have 
> never been in civil society, so no 'constituency shopping' excuse can 
> be used in their case)


These bodies (and others) have spent Millions of USD/Euros on "Enhanced
cooperation over the last few years.  Having staff dedicated to the UN/ITU
processes, opening up inter-governmental WGs in their own processes, giving
Fellowships to their meetings to government types, supporting the IGF
financially, etc, etc.  The T&A folk are the only ones committed to EC in
this way.  I suggest we let their experts use their considerable expertise
in EC, and not whinge because we don't like they way they select these
experts!


>
> This cannot be a one sided redefinition of a category which fills as 
> many places as the whole of civil society does in policy related 
> bodies. And those who want to debate this issue cannot be reduced to 
> some kind of mean petulant people who have nothing better to do than raise
controversies.


You seem to have done this all by yourself to speak frankly!


 This
> is an important and central issue of multistakeholderism, ad we have a 
> right to discuss it here and communicate our views on the matter.

Happy to discuss, not happy that we have communicated a non-consensus
position to ISOC, as Norbert has done down thread.

If I had the bandwidth I would write up a recall petition as his accusation
of "a human rights violation" is WAY beyond the pale!

>
> MSism will the biggest loser if we refuse to construct the needed 
> norms, principles and rules for it.

These were constructed and have been practiced for decades by the T&A folks.

>And here we refuse to even discuss them.


We are discussing them.


--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel



-------------- 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