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

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder

snipping

On Mar 18, 2013, at 8:51 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>> So your answer to academics being disenfranchised by being lumped with the TC is to disenfranchise the TC?
> 
> Hi Bill
> 
> No, it isnt. 

Hmm…you sure?

> 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?

How social theorists of CS etc would see this is an interesting question, but in terms of the immediate issue of how the UN organizes interest aggregation and representation in this space, yes I see a constituency.  And if you don't, but rather see the TC like academics as a sort of cross-cutting set of individuals with some sort of expertise, then I don't see how you can say no to my question above.  

That said, I think it'd be helpful to try to arrive at a more principled conceptualization of the TC than either "people who've contributed to the technical development of the net" or "people involved in the day to day operation of the net," since neither appears to have a consistent relationship to who's deemed to be in or out of the tribe. 
> 
>>  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.

I see myself as a CS person who also plays in some TC spaces a bit.
>> 
>> 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.

Careful now, that's two statements of agreement between us in one para…I'm feeling a hint of vertigo :-)

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

Until persuaded otherwise I'm content with 5/5/5, and would encourage you and anyone else who's not to develop a principled case in a manner that other SGs might reasonably be expected to engage in dialogue on.  What's been happening lately pushes against dialogue and mutual understanding.
> 
>> 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.

Ok, I should have said some might think…I know you'd not shy away from debate on this or anything else and see that as just good democratic practice.

>> My suggestion would be to not do a bilateral adversarial inquiry,
> 
> There us nothing adversarial here.

Yesterday, allegedly speaking on our behalf, our co-coordinator publicly called an ISOC staffer a human rights violator.  Earlier, one of our members wrote to the head of the CSTD and asked that he not accept nominations from the T (no A) C stakeholder group until he's satisfied with their decision not to select him as their rep.  And so on…nothing adversarial?  
> 
>> 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.

There's no "before," people from other SGs are on the list, and judging from the side traffic apparently not all feeling emboldened right now about pursuing deeper dialogue and cooperation with the IGC.  Hopefully the situation improves and something useful eventually arises from all this sturm und drang.  Maybe Anriette's workshop proposal could help in this context; not exactly the right format, but at least it's a known vehicle.

BTW I do agree with you (a third time!) that a more open and deliberative culture would be desirable across the SGs…We may wash our dirty laundry in public, but at least we wash our dirty laundry in public….

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