[governance] Gurstein - Bommelaer Correspondence on WG on EC (amended)

Mon Mar 18 20:01:46 EDT 2013

My apologies, I just noticed that a couple of key messages (one each--I've
bolded them for easy reference) for March 12, were inadvertently not
included in the sequence. I think with these additional messages the
exchange (and the disagreement over definitions) is rather more coherent
overall.

M

-----Original Message-----

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:02 AM

To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org'

Subject: Hello Constance

Hi Constance,

...

I understand that you are the focal point for the Technical and Academic
component of nominations for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.

I have an interest in presenting myself for nomination within the Academic
component -- as an academic researcher in Community Informatics -- which has
a specific concern for the grassroots/community uses of ICTs.

As I believe you know, I have been quite active in the Internet Governance
Caucus (and am going to be one of the speakers on behalf of Civil Society at
the upcoming WSIS+10 review) but in this instance I would look to wear my
most prominent "hat", and the one that I use for my day job which is that of
an academic/researcher and it is that background, experience and perspective
that I would look to bring to the proposed Working Group.

Perhaps you could let me know what the procedures and deadlines are for
nomination/self-nomination/endorsement etc. for this position. Also, if you
are going to be at the WSIS+10 review and you think it worthwhile perhaps we
could have a chat to discuss this.

With best wishes,

Mike

-----Original Message-----

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 7:28 PM

To: 'Constance Bommelaer'

Subject: RE: Hello Constance

Hi Constance,

I don't think that I heard back from you re: the process that should be
followed concerning presentation of myself as an "academic" candidate.  I
have a number of people/groups waiting to send endorsements and I'm not sure
who they should be sent to, if there is format that you prefer, deadlines
and so on.

I'm going to be quite busy for the next couple of weeks here in Europe I
have a couple of academic events in the UK after this one so if I could hear
back from you concerning the above asap that would be very useful.

Tks,

Mike

-----Original Message-----

From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] 

Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:12 AM

To: michael gurstein

Subject: Re: Hello Constance

Hi Michael,

I have checked with other colleagues especially those who participated in
the WSIS processes. I understand that "the academic and technical
communities" mentioned in the TAIS refers to the scientists who developed
the Internet and the technical organizations/people who run it, and not to
social scientists and the like.

Would you consider approaching Anriette Esterhuysen who I believe is
coordinating the Civil Society group?

Best,

Constance

-----Original Message-----

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:12 AM

To: Constance Bommelaer

Subject: Re: Hello Constance

Hi Constance,

I could be wrong but I would have thought that the concern was to include
the range of research expertise that has been involved in both the
development and implementation of the Internet and I and a very large range
of colleagues have worked in these areas from almost the very beginnings of
Internet development.

Certainly my research/academic colleagues in this area would see themselves
as being in a position to make a positive contribution based on their
research and academic activities and leaving the pursuit of more normative
elements in these areas to where it properly belongs in Civil Society.  So
unless there is a formal decision that would restrict this I would very much
prefer to have my candidacy reviewed in this category.

Best,

Mike

-----Original Message-----

From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] 

Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:26 AM

To: michael gurstein

Subject: your bio

Hi Michael,

Can you please send me your biography. I am currently compiling the list of
interested individuals for the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. I may end up
with more candidates than seats but I am collecting expressions of interest
at this stage.

Thank you and best regards,

--

Constance Bommelaer

Director, Public Policy

The Internet Society

www.isoc.org

-----Original Message-----

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:01 PM

To: 'Constance Bommelaer'

Subject: RE: your bio

Hi Constance,

I'll send you a brief bio and a full (if slightly out of date) academic
resume.

Best and thanks,

M

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

On 3/5/13 9:26 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

> Hi Constance,

> 

> I'm just enquiring whether you have sufficient information from me to 

> proceed with your work as the focal point in the technical/academic 

> grouping.

> 

> I'm also interested to know what your procedures will be with respect 

> to forwarding the names that have been brought forward.  As you 

> perhaps know the IGC has had a formal nomcom process which has now 

> reported and I was wondering if you were undertaking a counterpart
process?

> 

> Best,

> 

> Mike

> 

-----Original Message-----

From: Constance Bommelaer [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:31 AM

To: michael gurstein

Subject: Re: Hi Constance: Re: ECWG

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your note.

I am currently compiling the list of expressions of interest I have
received.

The criteria used are:

- Gender and geographic balance

- Familiarity with the WSIS process

- Ability to travel (no funding available)

- Willingness and ability to dedicate some time to the working group

- Representing the technical and academic communities

I will complete the process on Friday and get back to you then.

Best regards,

Constance

-----Original Message-----

From: bommelaer at isoc.org [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] 

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:32 AM

To: michael gurstein

Subject: CSTD WG on EC

Dear Michael, 

Thank you four your interest in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
Cooperation nomination process. 

I have sent to the UN the names of all the individuals who have expressed an
interest. However, I have not personally recommended your nomination as I
felt other individuals met better the criteria.

The Chair of the CSTD will nominate the members of the Working Group.

Thanks again for your interest and best regards,

Constance Bommelaer 

-----Original Message-----

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:02 AM

To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org'

Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC

Thank you for getting back Constance.

In the interests of transparency would it be possible to indicate "the
criteria" that you mention (in your note) as the basis on which your
recommendation was made and also the names of those who you recommended to
the Chair as more closely meeting those criteria. 

My colleagues I'm sure, will have an interest in this for future such
opportunities.

Tks,

Mike

-----Original Message-----

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:12 PM

To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org'

Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC

Hi Constance,

I haven't heard back from you and as the process is, I believe, moving
forward on the UN side I do want to make sure that my 'nomination' was
considered appropriately and within what I assume are the applicable
procedures i.e. those that cover the selection from the various stakeholder
groups to the MAG as made explicit in the report of the CSTD WG on
Improvements to the IGF.

Transparency and accountability are, I'm sure we agree, necessary
pre-conditions to an effective multi-stakeholder process hence my concern to
ensure that this is realized in this instance as in others.

Sincerely,

Mike

-----Original Message-----

From: bommelaer at isoc.org [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:15 PM

To: michael gurstein

Subject: Re: CSTD WG on EC

Hi Michael, 

Multi-stakeholderism is absolutely critical and I believe we share this
view.

The criteria used are those that I have sent you in a previous note. They
have not changed and they were communicated to the UN:

- gender and geographical balance;

- familiarity with the WSIS process;

- ability to travel (no funding);

- ability and willingness to dedicate some time to the working group;

- representing the technical and academic community.

Consultations were led and I have also talked to many individuals from Civil
Society and the Business community (including their focal points). 

My interpretation of the "technical and academic community" includes the
academics who have contributed to building the Internet. You are widely
recognized as an active (and excellent) leader of the Civil Society and I
also note that at the WSIS+10 conference hosted by UNESCO end of February,
you spoke as a representative and leader of Civil Society. This leads to
some confusion.

I fully recognize and appreciate your skills and hope you have expressed
your interest to represent the Civil Society.    

Finally, please note that I have not nominated individuals in this process
as I was solely requested to make recommendations. I have also informed the
UN of all individuals who have expressed an interest for purpose of
transparency. The Chair of the CSTD will nominate the members of the Working
Group.

Best regards,

Constance

-------- Original Message -------- 

Subject:               RE: CSTD WG on EC

Date:     Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:38:48 -0700

From:    michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>

To:          <bommelaer at isoc.org>

Thanks Constance...

Do I understand you to be saying in your criteria below that those such as

myself and my colleagues who have been working to ensure that the Internet

is accessible and usable by all are not "contributing to building the

Internet" and is this definition one that has been agreed to by the UN/CSTD?

M

-----Original Message-----

From: bommelaer at isoc.org [mailto:bommelaer at isoc.org] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:18 AM

To: michael gurstein

Subject: Re: CSTD WG on EC

Hi Michael,

That is not what I said. All categories of stakeholders play an important
role in developing accessibility to the Internet, the Civil Society, the
Business community and the technical and academic community. Hence the
importance of multi-stakeholderism.  

My interpretation of the technical and academic community includes
individuals who have technically built the Internet.

In addition, your leading and representation role within the Civil Society
including at the WSIS+10 conference last February leads to some confusion.
Did you also express an interest to represent the Civil Society in this
process?

Best regards,

Constance

-----Original Message-----

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:48 AM

To: 'bommelaer at isoc.org'

Subject: RE: CSTD WG on EC

Hi Constance,

Thanks for the clarification and I understand your definition of
"technically built the Internet", however, that isn't what was said nor
based on your earlier comments is it I believe, a formal definition provided
from the UN CTSD.

Certainly, I have had a leading role in certain activities of Civil Society
including WSIS +10, but similarly leading actors from the technical
community have also had a representative role in Civil Society from time to
time (Avri Doria comes immediately to mind) and as you know the technical
community has and continues to play an extremely active role in the (civil
society) Internet Governance Caucus.

I think we must agree that the lines are somewhat fuzzy here. Further, at
least on your initial criteria of "contributing to the building of the
Internet" (which I think, at this time of a degree of technical "maturity"
of the Internet, is perhaps an even more appropriate one), I would
anticipate being highly commendable as a representative of the
"technical/academic" community including to the WG on EC. In that context I
would foresee speaking as an academic/researcher in the area of user issues
concerning the Internet including making the Internet more accessible and
particularly to those at the margins and in LDC's.

But perhaps we have now exhausted this conversation, and since I don't
foresee us reaching consensus on this perhaps, with your permission, we
could send this correspondence to the Chair of the CTSD to adjudicate on the
matter of the definition of what is meant by the "technical and academic"
stakeholder group.

Best,

Mike

-----Original Message-----

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake

Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:41 AM

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

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?  

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130318/3503ef99/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