[governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance

Mon Sep 9 01:14:19 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.)
>
> Please relax, read what people have to say.  We are still allowed opinions I hope.

Yes, Adam, people are allowed to have and give their opinion. Civil 
society should especially give its opinion regularly on those who 
exercise power. And, well, to some extent, a civil society member of the 
WG on enhanced cooperation does exercise some power. I have therefore 
responded to the issues that you, Avri and Bill raised. And I am happy 
for a further discussion on these issues.

Meanwhile, I must say that similarly other people here - including you 
-   should also have the stomach for critical opinions that members of 
IGC may have for others exercising power, whether as being incharge of 
nomination processes for WGEC membership on behalf of the technical 
community or the civil society; or as members of the MAG who need to 
deal with issues related to whether 'IGF is getting commercialised' 
through inappropriate quid pro quo to corporate funders; or as the chair 
of a regional IGF who may publicly state a position about what is 
legitimate to be allowed as such quid pro quos.......

The problem, in my view, is that opinions, including critical opinions, 
here get seen in two varieties - those which may be directed at 
multistakholderist platforms, and the 'respected people' associated with 
such platforms, and those with regard to all others..... While criticism 
of the latter kind is freely offered, in a rather unrestrained manner, 
any criticism - however valid - of some of the so called 'respected 
people' manning multistakeholder systems, and in the front line of the 
multistakeholder march, immidiately results in a reactive avalanche of 
rather strident, 'never do it again' kind of response. I think we need a 
bit of balance here.... All power is liable to be abused, 
multistakeholderist or not, and civil society spaces are the right 
places for all kind of question asking and accountability seeking.

parminder

>
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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