[governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Tue Mar 19 01:47:13 EDT 2013
I’m pulling Parminder’s proposal out of another thread for ease of comment and discussion, and also attaching some comments from Nnenna earlier on as regards workshop 2. We have just a few days to finalise this, I think all three workshop proposals are deserving of consideration.
But I would change the title of workshop 2 to something broader – eg “Multistakeholderism in practice – issues and principles” . Nnennas suggestions were
Objectives
1.. Highlight lessons learned in MSism
2.. Explore what has worked in transparency, openness and inclusion
3.. Discuss possible principles for non-government stakeholder representation
4.. Propose working methods for IGF MSism going forward
5.. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation debate
6.. Contribute a working document to the CSTD.
Nnenna also suggested
Maybe if "Civil Society" shares this with the other stakeholder, discussions may begin already and IGF will be a kind of coming together of discussions already held within the non-gov stakeholder groups. And drafting can take place.
To which I would add that the success of such a workshop (and probably even its approval) is dependent on the participation of other stakeholders. While I realise some people here would prefer a more direct reference and discussion on recent issues, I think a broader approach, while not avoiding these issues, is both pragmatic and also likely to lead to a better workshop.
And Parminder’s three workshop proposals are below.
From: parminder
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:27 PM
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
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130319/ba146a4c/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