[governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Sep 9 00:57:37 EDT 2013
On Friday 30 August 2013 01:30 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
>
> I did not say there were rules. I did not suggest that a WG members's organization could not/should not submit a contribution; on the contrary I would expect organizations like APC, IT For Change (ISOC, ICANN, etc etc) to submit comments, and hope they do. But I am uncomfortable with a WGEC member shopping around such contributions so they become a statement of some stakeholder group or sub-set of (and I guess by association imbued with some greater weight etc.)
Adam
We at IT for Change firmly believe that the legitimacy of civil society
depends on the representative that it brings to the table. A position
developed through wide consultaitons and drawing wide support,
especially from organisations that have clear demonstrated links with
marginalised groups, should indeed be seen with that 'greater weight' it
carries. What you disparagingly call as 'shopping around' is what we in
advocacy call as consultation, networking and constituency building.
The proposed joint statement was developed over a long period, with
intensive consultations and support building, for instance see the joint
statement
<http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet>
by more 60 organisations to the May 2012 CSTD consultations on EC, which
statement is explicitly quoted in the present one, and the proposed
position on new mechanisms built from it. This earlier statement, and IT
for Change's earlier work, statements, network of supporters etc were
all listed in detail in the nomination form submitted to the civil
society nomination process for the WGEC membership and the CSTD chair,
on the basis of which I understand I was selected to be a part of the WG
on enhanced cooperation.
Everything proposed in the new statement has often been discussed (at
least attempted to be discussed) on the IGC list... Even after the
questionnaire was issued, I have tried to trigger discussion on the EC
issue on this list and other CS lists... I fully participated in the
BestBits sub list that did some degree of discussion on this subject -
proposing, discussing, taking inputs on and responding to precisely the
kind of proposals that find place in the final statement
<http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet>.
These proposals were discussed widely in the last few weeks, and changed
considerably owing to inputs from several people, including those on
this list. I have repeatedly written on many people to provide inputs/
comments even if, for whatever reason, they are unable to support the
basic positions in this statement.
So, no Adam, this is not 'shopping around'. This is what we do in civil
society to make connections, and gather legitimacy. We do not believe
that just anyone who can get travel money and is able to ingratiate
oneself with those in high places is a legitimate civil society rep at
policy bodies like the WGEC. Any civil society representative at such
bodies should be able to demonsrate her/ his linkages to various
constituencies, most of all of marginalised groups, and constantly renew
these linkages, and feed off them. That is what we are doing.
My colleague Anita said at Paris WSIS forum closing session,
"Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a
means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work
with and among people." We take this principle rather seriously....
Unfortunately, in the IG space a lot of people have begun to believe
that if they have good relations with higher up in what may be called as
the 'multistakeholder space' and can keep getting support and good words
from the business sector, technical community, and well, developed
country gov guys, you have made it. No, that does not make one civil
society. One needs to to connect, and connect continuously, to people
'down there'...
(BTW, this is the list
<http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet_signatories>
of 43 organisations and many more individuals that have supported the
position prepared by IT for Change as an input to the WG on Enhanced
cooperation.... This position still remains open for discussion, and we
are taking inputs for it. )
This said, civil society members who do enter committees and working
groups etc know pretty well their responsibilities as members of such
official groups, and so do I. I have taken note of your, Avir's and
Bill's comments. I have responded to most of them above. As to Bill's
proposal that I excuse myself when other civil society proposals are
being discussed, I dont consider it appropriate. All WG members will
discuss all of the proposals, being full cognizant of their roles as WG
members. Also, almost all WG members would have submitted their own
proposals. The two activities are not contradictory, or exclusive.
parminder
>
> Please relax, read what people have to say. We are still allowed opinions I hope.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>> Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course.
>>
>> My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the
>> WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are
>> the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think
>> the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help
>> convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to
>> respond and provide their views, I would welcome it.
>>
>> Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related
>> to from this survey, and this is the position of several other
>> participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the
>> questionnaire.
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I do not know Adam's reasons.
>>>
>>> I know my own reasons for not doing so.
>>>
>>> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways.
>>>
>>> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in.
>>>
>>> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would
>>>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to
>>>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are
>>>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not
>>>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did
>>>> you get this from, Adam?
>>>>
>>>> fraternal regards
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
>>>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really?
>>>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer
>>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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/20130909/634c44d0/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