[governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC

[Ian Peter]

So much of this conversation is becoming unproductive (particularly that in 
response to Constance's letter) that I almost feel like dropping involvement 
on this issue altogether.

But there is a serious issue of academic community involvement and 
clarification on how they should be included in the "academic and technical" 
category. I think that is a matter for CSTD to clarify, not ISOC or any 
individual. I would support a letter to CSTD asking for clarification here 
in the light of various statements made, as others have suggested. But I 
would not support an accusatory or complaining letter to anyone.

Irrespective of anyone else's actions, beliefs, or mistakes, I think keeping 
the "civil" in civil society is important in achieving our objectives here.

Ian Peter


-----Original Message----- 
From: William Drake
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:07 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection 
of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC

Hi Parminder

snipping...

On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:35 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>> but instead we're dealing with self-defined tribes.  Conflating the 
>> 'technical' and the 'academic' communities into one category just triples 
>> down on the problem.  This is utter nonsense
>
> I dont see it as nonsense. Both groups represent some kind of 'expertise' 
> and not constituency representation, and thus it is very logical to put 
> them together.

So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with the 
TC is to disenfranchise the TC?  So the topography would be just 
governments, business and CS, only they'd have defined constituency 
representation roles...I don't agree since there's a substantial independent 
constituency being represented by the TC, one that's bigger than the IGC. 
But a bit more important than our respective views are the facts on the 
ground;  the TC  is recognized in the topography and that's not going to 
change because some CS folks don't like it.  Given that reality, there's no 
logical basis for them to deemed the representative of academics as well. 
There are academics who are properly in the TC because of their areas of 
disciplinary expertise and outlook, and there are academics who don't see 
themselves that way and feel they are CS.

Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that non-technical 
academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group.  Sure, it'd be nice for 
us to have our own little sandbox to build and demand our very own seats at 
the table, and hiving us off from CS could mean an increase in progressive 
voices etc.  But we don't represent our students, colleagues, or 
institutions when we participate in these processes…we're individuals who 
can represent the networks we share views with etc.  My concern is that 
individual CS people often get unduly short shrift relative to CSO staff in 
some settings, but that's another conversation.

> So, should then CS refrain from saying anything about or to the 
> governments, the ICANN plus community, ISOC, and the private sector. Then 
> what is the work we are left with - to fight among ourselves?

Well, there's something to be said for sticking with what you're good at…but 
of course not, it just depends on context.  It's one thing when other SGs 
are making decisions that affect everyone, e.g. TC bodies that set policies, 
and another they're positioned as parallel peers in a process.  We might 
think it odd for the business community to write to us expressing concern 
about how the IGC operates, no?   If there's to be a push for different 
approaches in the TC's self-governance, it'd be better coming from within 
the TC than from us.  Of course, experience suggests that's not easy in 
practice, but the principal remains valid.
>
> If we cannot send a simple transparency seeking query to ISOC, and seek 
> clarifications about how they include or exclude nominations to be sent on 
> behalf 'tech/acad community' - -  which is a public role entrusted to them 
> my a public authority - simply becuase we need to be friendly with ISOC, 
> it is really very problematic.

My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry, but 
instead to try to launch a broader collegial discussion about the processes 
followed by the three nongovernmental SGs and ways to enhance our 
coordination where desirable.  I don't know whether we could entice anyone 
into that at this point, but if there's bandwidth it could be worth a try.

Best

Bill






____________________________________________________________
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