[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 09:20:34 EDT 2013 

On Monday 18 March 2013 05:50 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> 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.)

Yes, that's why we plan to write to CSTD Chair. Entirely consistent.

>
> Apologies due to Constance perhaps?

I did not understand. Apologies for ?

Non technical academics have always been welcome in this caucus,


Yes, they have been and are always very welcome.

>   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.

Agreed. That too is proposed.

parminder

>
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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