[governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Mar 18 04:24:37 EDT 2013
Dear Ian and Anriette,
Yes, we should have a workshop on this issue at IGF Bali. Lets take
care, however, to structure it for real reflection and deliberation, and
not whitewashing issues, and I have enough experience of enough
workshops at the IGF that take issues to the IGF precisely to do that.
However, such a multistakeholder discussion in a formal space becomes no
reason for us not to have a discussion here, in this 'civil society'
caucus. I think the accusation of this conversation being
counter-productive is hugely overstated, if not completely misplaced.
Every political discussion does create some heat, but that is an
important and necessary social process - especially for those who are
not served by extant power structures. And the CS to me represents the
latter. And so I dont think we should be over sensitive on this. That
would be being too conservative. Postponing a discussion and needed
action to some indefinite later time because the discussion is causing
heat will just contribute to us never doing anything, never contributing
to a better world. And that is not what most of us are here for.
Having said so, I dont think anyone here who has spoken for
accountability seeking from people in public roles, with a duty to
recommend/appoint persons who would be part of an important public
body, has uttered any objectionable words. In fact I have heard more
objectionable words from those who are against such accountabiltiy
seeking (which still I dont consider as an excuse for stopping the
debate, especially becuase that may be the precise reason such words
were used).
As for the view that one stakeholder group should not have anything to
say about how another group selects nominees to a body that will make
decisions that apply to all of us, is to me is simply astounding. It is
like saying that I being from the state of Punjab in India should have
nothing to say about how members of national parliament get elected from
another state, say of Orissa !!??
Lastly, since I am intent that civil society does fulfil its
responsibility in the present case, and goes beyond simple waffling, I
will seek that we do something here when so many of us clearly see there
is a problem to be addressed. I see good support for a letter to the
CSTD instead of ISOC (maybe we can copy that letter to them), and in my
next email I will prose such a text.
I will like this text to be put for voting after a discussion, unless of
course we see complete support for the letter in which case the vote
will be unnecessary.
parminder
On Monday 18 March 2013 03:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> 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
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130318/30e8b6c6/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