[governance] Workshop Proposals - a few days to go
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Tue Mar 19 02:18:28 EDT 2013
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks Ian - I was just about to do that. Thank you for saving me the
effort.
>
> 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 <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *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<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
>
>
--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130319/a02bf981/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