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

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Tue Mar 19 01:25:24 EDT 2013


yes, all three, and there is every indication both business and technical/academic communities will join us on (2)

From: Jeremy Malcolm 
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:03 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Subject: Re: [governance] COMMENTS SOUGHT: draft letter to ISOC on selection of T&A nominees for CSTD WG on EC

Support all three (excuse brevity, replying by phone).

--  
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek 
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

On 19 Mar, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:


  I fully support the third proposal.

  For the first one, we need to be clear on scope.  Net neutrality is too vague a concept and has undergone considerable change from its early days of evolution when the talk was about CLECs, unbundling etc.  It has also got itself inextricably confused with an extreme form of the privacy debate that includes objecting on general principles to ISP logging of user activity and deep packet inspection, both of which are part of a security architecture.

  As for the second one - no, for multiple reasons discussed during this thread.

  --srs (iPad)

  On 19-Mar-2013, at 8:57, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:



    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 mailto: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

  ____________________________________________________________
  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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130319/19a6f9a1/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


More information about the Governance mailing list