[governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sun Mar 17 19:09:47 EDT 2013
I think this idea as refined by Nnenna below has a lot merit particularly if it is looking to identify appropriate norms and principles of SG operation in such areas as transparency, accountability, even-handedness, and inclusion.
M
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nnenna
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:47 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
Dear all,
+1 for the Workshop. My initial thoughts:
Objectives
1. Highlight lessons learned in MSism
2. Explore what has worked in transparency, openness and inclusion
3. Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder representation
4. Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward
5. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate
6. Contribute a working document to the CSTD.
Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming together of discussions already held within the non-gov stakeholder groups. And drafting can take place.
Best regards
Nnenna
Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants
Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development
Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820
Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org
nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com
_____
From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it is
well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the
multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing such a
workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward looking towards
development of the concept and multistakeholder best practice rather than
attempts to interpret past writings.
Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals?
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection
of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
Dear all
I share Ian's reaction. This conversation counter-productive.
Many of the processes we are establishing are still new, and need to be
tested and improved. CS processes are imperfect (as I have said before)
and no doubt so are those of other constituencies. But I don't believe
that attacking another constituency will produce any positive results
whatsoever. A more productive way of dealing with this, and Bill
proposes this, is to have a serious discussion among non-governmental
SGs about how to improve processes.
My proposal would be that at this point we allow the CSTD Chair to
complete the selection process, and the WG to start its work.
And then CS, the TA (as currently defined) and Business convene a
workshop at the next IGF to share experiences, raise concerns, and try
and identify good practice approaches to the selection of non-gov
stakeholder group representation in multi-stakeholder IG processes. We
could also discuss the categorisation of these
constituency groups, and the ambiguity around the definitions of the TA
community, and provide an input to the CSTD WG for its discussion.
Anriette
On 17/03/2013 22:01, Ian Peter wrote:
> 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
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130317/97ba3563/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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