[governance] Re: CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation

[Constance Bommelaer]

Dear Anriette,

Thank you for your note.

This sounds like a very reasonable approach and I would be happy to work 
with you on such a proposal. We all agree that these are important 
issues and the IGF offers the legitimate platform to discuss and make 
collective progress.

Multistakeholder processes are by essence in the hands of their 
respective stakeholder groups. It is our collective responsibility to 
nurture them with the strengths of our different cultures, in a spirit 
of cooperation and mutual respect. By discussing common principles of 
participation (openness of processes, transparency on individuals' 
interests, etc.), all stakeholders will be able to learn from each other 
and share good practices.

This joint workshop initiative is an opportunity to demonstrate our 
willingness and ability to work together in a constructive and 
cooperative fashion. I suggest that we work on the details of the 
proposal off-line; this will give me additional time to collect ideas 
and input from my own community.

To me, this discussion and our willingness to cooperate on this in a 
more practical manner is in itself a perfect illustration of the benefit 
of the multistakeholder framework.

Best regards,

Constance



On 3/18/13 11:41 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Constance
>
> (copying Ayesha Hassan - business focal point - and the IGC list)
>
> Thank you for your message and for your openness to discussing the
> concerns raised in the IGC list. I am responding in my capacity as focal
> point for the selection of CS participants in the CSTD WG on Enhanced
> Cooperation. As you have been following the discussion on the IGC list
> you would have a sense of the range of concerns and issues (and views on
> these) that this process has generated.
>
>
> As the political implications of the work done in these
> multi-stakeholder processes increase in potential impact - which is a
> positive sign - it is understandable that the processes used to identify
> participants in them will be under more intense scrutiny. This is
> certainly the case when it comes to 'enhanced cooperation'. I don't
> think that this scrutiny is being applied only to the TA constituency. I
> think it applies to all three non-governmental groups and possibly also
> to governments. In my role as focal point I tried to, on the one hand,
> respect the CS groupings already active in the IGF space, as well as
> create opportunities for civil society organisations/individuals that
> are not necessarily active in the IGF, but that have valuable experience
> in other governance processes. I was not as successful in this attempt
> as I would have liked to be.
>
>
> With regard to Michael Gurstein's nomination I can confirm that he did
> not put his name forward for CS selection. When I approached him to
> confirm his interest – I knew he was interested in participating in the
> WG - he informed me that he had put his name forward to the TA community
> and he was therefore not included in the CS selection process at all.
>
>
> My view is that the most constructive approach at this point would be:
>
> 1) For the chairperson of the CSTD to finalise the selection of the WG
> based on the inputs received from stakeholder groups and for the CSTD WG
> to start its work;
>
> 2) For the non-governmental stakeholder groups to pick up on the issues
> and concerns that the selection has raised at a workshop at the 2013 IGF.
>
> Such a workshop could be jointly convened by the three groups and used
> to share experiences, raise concerns, and try and identify good practice
> approaches. We could also discuss the composition of these constituency
> groups, including ambiguity around the definitions of the TA community
> and the challenges that arise at times in CS from having a mix of
> organisational members and individual CS activists and analysts.
>
> The outcomes of discussion at the workshop could become an input to the
> CSTD WG on EC.
>
> The objectives of the workshop could be defined as follows (building on
> the remarks of Nnenna Nwakanma on the IGC list):
>
>
> 1. Highlight lessons learned from our involvement in multi-stakeholder
> processes
>
> 2. Explore what has worked or not worked in terms of how stakeholder
> groups are defined and represented
>
> 3. Build a common understanding on what would constitute sufficient
> transparency, openness and inclusion in such processes and discuss
> possible principles to work from
>
> 4. Propose working methods for going forward
>
> 4. Deepen the Enhanced Cooperation discussion and contribute a working
> document to the CSTD WG on EC.
>
>
> Discussion between the three groups could potentially begin in the build
> up to the IGF. There is certainly interest on the IGC list to initiate
> such discussion. We could also use the opportunity of the next IGF open
> consultation to have a face to face discussion.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 17/03/2013 11:18, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
>> Dear Anriette,
>>
>> I am writing to you in your capacity of focal point for the Civil
>> Society for the nomination process of the CSTD working group on
>> Enhanced Cooperation. At the outset, I would like to reaffirm the
>> importance we attach to the relationships we have been able to build
>> across various stakeholders groups throughout the years. For this
>> reason I am also sending a copy to Ayesha and to the Civil Society group.
>>
>> The process of setting up the CSTD working Group on Enhanced
>> Cooperation has taken an unfortunate twist. We noticed that there is a
>> move underway to question the representation of the technical and
>> academic community in the Working Group and we presume that this was
>> triggered by the discussions surrounding the non-selection of Michael
>> Gurstein.
>>
>> I was asked to coordinate the selection of the representatives of our
>> stakeholder group and I did so in a thorough process within our
>> community. The names put forward were subject to considerable
>> discussion as well as oral dialogue with many individuals from Civil
>> Society and the Business community (including their focal points). The
>> criteria used were shared with all interested individuals as well as
>> with the UN.
>>
>> Mr Gurstein’s application was assessed in light of the same criteria
>> and his name was not retained. We fail to understand why he appeals to
>> the Chairman of the CSTD and tries to question our procedures. Up
>> until February 2013, he considered himself being part of Civil Society
>> and spoke as one of its leaders and representatives at the recent
>> WSIS+10 meeting. I also understand that he initially expressed an
>> interest to be endorsed by the Civil Society to participate to the
>> CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which also leads to
>> confusion. For purpose of transparency, I mentioned his interest to
>> the Chair of the CSTD who nominates the representatives of the various
>> stakeholder groups. I do believe, however, that unsuccessful
>> applicants in one process should not engage in “constituency shopping”
>> and question the entire process.
>>
>> The Tunis Agenda identified the technical and academic community as a
>> separate sub-group. De UN de facto recognized it as a separate group
>> and always asked ISOC to coordinate the selection process. It is
>> understood that the definition contained in the Tunis Agenda can be
>> discussed; new groups could even appear tomorrow. However, the context
>> was clear and it referred to the community of organizations and
>> individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational management
>> of the Internet and who work within this community.  This category
>> manifested itself in the WGIG process. Other academics had been
>> involved in WSIS right from the start but identified themselves with
>> Civil Society. This distinction has been used by the UN since 2005.
>>
>> Meanwhile, it is unclear how attacks between different stakeholder
>> groups can support multistakeholderism. In my view, advocating for the
>> technical and academic community to be merged with Civil Society or
>> even for its representatives to be appointed by governments
>> contradicts the multistakeholder principle that we are all attached
>> to. Furthermore, I believe no group should attempt to impose control
>> upon another, nor should any group be beholden to another.  This would
>> be the end of multistakeholderism.
>>
>> Multistakeholder cooperation is still in its beginning. It is a
>> delicate plant but each stakeholder group can contribute to nurturing
>> it with its own culture, and processes. The technical community’s work
>> is based on open and inclusive development processes. In this spirit,
>> the Internet Society has always demonstrated its commitment to open
>> and inclusive policy dialogues. We systematically advocate for the
>> inclusion of Civil Society in arenas where critical discussions are
>> being held (e.g. ITU, OECD, etc). We also support the participation of
>> individuals from all stakeholder groups in Internet governance
>> discussions (IGF, IETF, etc.).
>>
>> Cooperation and reciprocal encouragements among all stakeholder groups
>> are key to advance the cause of multistakeholderism. I look forward to
>> working with all of you in this spirit.
>>
>> Thank you and best regards,
>>
>>
>

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