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

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Mon Mar 18 08:20:25 EDT 2013 

When CSTD appointed the focal points and gave them guidelines (see
attached), Constance Bommelaer was appointed "TECHNICAL AND ACADEMIC
COMMUNITY FOCAL POINT"  (caps from the original document, not mine.)

Apologies due to Constance perhaps?

Non technical academics have always been welcome in this caucus, in
fact I think fair to say there wouldn't be a caucus without them.

I think taking this matter to a workshop in Bali would be helpful.

Adam



On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:05 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Monday 18 March 2013 01:54 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I propose the following text for an IGC letter to the Chair of CSTD ( with a
> possible cc to ISOC).
>
> parminder
>
> (Suggested text begins)
>
> Dear ...
> Chair, CSTD.
>
>
> We approach your office to request a clarification about the definition that
> was employed, or was supposed to be employed, to identify nominees from the
> 'technical and academic community' for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
> Cooperation that is being set up. Some academics have felt excluded because,
> apparently, as per a communication to us from the Focal Point for forwarding
> nominees from the 'technical and academic community' only "organizations and
> individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management of the
> Internet and who work within this community" were considered.
>
> We are not sure how this definition matches with the intention of Tunis
> Agenda (particularly Sec 35) and the concerned UN General Assembly
> resolution that mandated the setting up of the Working Group, which,
> significantly, uses the plural term 'technical and academic communities'.
>
> We will particularly like to know if academics can apply under this
> category, and whether applying academics should just be from among
> technical/ engineering disciplines, or if other areas of academic expertise
> related to Internet – like social media, ICTs for development, cyber-law,
> etc may also be eligible? Secondly, whether technical people who may not be
> associated with organizations involved with day to day operational
> management of the Internet may also be considered in this category?
>
> We understand that participation of different non-government stakeholders in
> increasingly the norm in WSIS related processes, for which the CSTD is the
> focal point for system-wide follow-up. In this regard, whether this may or
> not have any bearing on the current process for constituting the WG on EC,
> such a clarification would be extremely useful for other such processes in
> the future.
>
> We also take the opportunity to draw your attention to the report of the
> CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, whereby it has been
> recommended that the process of stakeholder nomination and selection for
> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group of the UN Internet Governance Forum be
> fully documented and publicized. It would perhaps be useful to make such
> full documentation and publication as the norm for stakeholder nomination/
> selection processes for all bodies, committees, working groups etc.
>
> We are happy to assist you in all ways possible for developing norms and
> guidelines for selection of stakeholder representatives to various bodies,
> which, in our view, is an exercise that  should be undertaken in the right
> earnest.
>
> (ends)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Focal Points for Consultations.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 210072 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130318/36b764aa/attachment.pdf>
-------------- 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