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

Mon Mar 18 23:27:31 EDT 2013

On Monday 18 March 2013 03:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> I agree with the workshop idea as well, I think that might help if it 
> is well run with an aim of achieving clarity and development of the 
> multistakeholder concept. Would be happy to be involved in proposing 
> such a workshop. But I would also want the workshop to be forward 
> looking towards development of the concept and multistakeholder best 
> practice rather than attempts to interpret past writings.
>
>
> Dont we have an imminent deadline for workshop proposals?

Yes, the deadline is in 3 days, the 22nd. Not sure if MAG members have 
asked for extension, since there was strong demand here and everywhere 
else for it.

I propose that IGC puts forward 3 workshop proposals

One, on net neutrality - which is the policy question we raised in our 
submission to the MAG consultations. Since there was consensus on the 
'policy question' the same can be presented as a workshop proposal 
without much ado.

Second should be a workshop on /*'Modalities for selection of (non gov) 
stakeholder representatives for public bodies'*/ .

Third, flows from (surprisingly) the only clear policy question idea was 
was proposed during the MAG meeting. This was done by Thomas Schneider 
of the Swiss government, and supported by Bill. I am not clear about the 
wordings used but it was the key WCIT issue of /*'how traditional 
telecom regulations, and regulatory norms and institutions, apply or 
dont apply to the Internet'*/ . Having witnesses the turmoil of and 
around WCIT, there could be few more pertinent policy related questions 
than this one. So, well I propose we have a workshop on this question.

Co-coordinators may take on from here. A proforma for submitting 
workshops proposals is online now at 
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/proposals

parminder

>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:03 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on 
> selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC
>
>
> 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/20130319/c949e08c/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