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

[parminder]

On Sunday 17 March 2013 03:37 PM, William Drake wrote:
> 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?

Hi Bill

No, it isnt. I just believe that each so called stakeholder group have 
different legitimacies to be on the table and different roles. In fact, 
those who put civil society to have similar legitimacy and role as 
private sector or technical community do a great disservice to the very 
idea of civil society. And this needs deep interrogation and 
corrections, esp in the discourse of multistakeholderism (MSism).

Bill, I remember your presentation at ITU workshop at an early WSIS 
forum in Geneva. You insisted, against some ITU wording that civil 
society is not here just for expertise, and if I remember right, you 
said it brought in representation etc. And I very much agreed. Do you 
think that private sector, and technical community also similarly bring 
in 'representation' in its meaning in democratic theory? That is the key 
question. We need to seriously discuss this question, and the related 
ones. I think they only bring certain expertise and knowledge to the 
table, and thus their presence cna never be considered similar either to 
civil society's or to governments. I am ready to debate this, and also 
to take this debate out to larger civil society and academic quarters.

> 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,

Here we are running into the problem of what we mean by TC (technical 
community). ISOC as the focal point includes in this category only those 
who are clearly involved with day to day technical operational 
management of the Internet (with which I understand those involved with 
ICANN, RIRs, the etc, I am not sure IETF can be considered to be 
invovled in day to day operational management but lets say they are in 
too, I dont think ISOC is involved with day to day operational 
management, but anyway.....)

Now, I am pretty sure that this is not how the term 'technical 
community' is used by people on this list, or in general IG space. IN 
fact many people here who consider themselves as tech community will be 
extremely disappointed by this definition, whether they are speaking out 
about it nor not.

Neither did WSIS documents use the term in this manner. (For instance 
sec 35 puts International organisations that develop Internet related 
standards and policies in 35 e, very distinct from the mention of 
'technical and academic community' later on as cross cutting across all 
stakeholder groups.)

But in any case, going by ISOCs definition, do you think those who are 
involved with day to day operational management of the Internet, 
actually represent a constituency as for instance civil society and its 
various sub groups - gender, disability, ingenious people etc do? And 
even if say yes to this, that they should get the same number of seats 
at the policy table as the entire civil society does?


> one that's bigger than the IGC.

IGC in not the issue. Larger civil society is.....
>   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.

Do you see yourself both ways, or just one? Just to help understand 
categories.
>
> Relatedly, I also disagree with Anriette's suggestion that non-technical academics be viewed as a separate stakeholder group.

me too disagree.
>   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.
I agree. For civil society while the expertise of an academic is of 
instrumental value, the real part is the interests s/he represents, 
through networks, demonstrated work 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,

How 5 five seats on an important policy related global body gets filled 
affects everyone. That is the reason we are raising questions.

> 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?

No, I wouldnt. Anyone can pose questions to us in public interest. And 
questions from a big respected body like ICC will be considered with all 
the due respect. And you know it that is how we will treat it, dont you. 
We will never look like saying, this is none of your business. Because 
we do believe this is everyone's business. I have not the slightest 
doubt about it. By the way, do we never have questions on how 
governments organise themselves. We certainly can and should have.



>    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.

Some kinds or process, but for those with larger public implication, 
everyone is involved.
>   Of course, experience suggests that's not easy in practice, but the principal remains valid.

It is wrong principle all stakeholder categories are some kind of closed

>> 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,

There us nothing adversarial here. This is a political space, and we are 
talking to people in a public role (why such deep freindly 
considerations are not applied to governments for instance). Question 
asking is part of democratic practice (how much of it your congress 
does, is all that to be considered as avoidably adversarial). I have a 
deep problem with MSism becoming a kind of cosy relationship elitism, 
and disconnecting from practices and principles of democratic public life.

> 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.

I have absolutely no idea why should we not discuss this thing here in 
the civil society before we discuss it with others. BTW, since 
respective cultures are often mentioned, dont we all know that other 
groups no not have that kind of a deliberative culture as CS does, and 
it must too.

parminder
>
> Best
>
> Bill


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