[intended to the list but went just to Adam --c.a.]

-----Original Message-----
From: "carlos a. afonso" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Adam Peake" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 12:09:58 -0300
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] The WGIG nominations

Adam, I think you make a very good explanation at the end of your msg
(below) of the process we should follow. Thanks. Let us be careful and
try to stick to it as much as possible.

fraternal rgds

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:42:05 +0900
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] The WGIG nominations

> >Adam,
> >
> >It is clear to me now that you, as co-chair
>
>
> NOT a co-chair.  And this isn't being picky over words.  When
> Jeanette and I agree to be coordinators of the WSIS-CS Internet
> governance caucus we made very clear we would not be representatives,
> we would not be chairs, we would not try to speak for the other
> members of the caucus. We would coordinate the work and opinions of
> members. Facilitate best we could. Best probably not good enough, but
> that is how we try to work.
>
> Milton was at the meeting where we first made this clear, and is a
> member of the caucus list where it has been mentioned.  Given what's
> being said about me and my motives I think this is quite important.
>
>
> >of the
> >WSIS-CS Internet governance caucus (IGC)
> >perceived this initiative of ours as a kind of
> >threat.
>
>
> No I don't.
>
>
> >I apologize for that, it was intended in
> >just the opposite way, as a help.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> >You are now overreacting in a way that threatens
> >to turn what was intended to be a cooperative
> >process into some kind of power struggle.
>
>
> No, no power struggle, and I'm not the one overreacting!
>
>
> >You
> >have attacked NCUC's legitimacy on the WSIS
> >lists,
>
>
> No I haven't. Perhaps referring to this:
>
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2004-August/003212.html
>
> (Milton's offer to help, must say I love the use of "we" :-)
>
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2004-August/003213.html
>
>
> >and now you are attacking the NCUC's
> >Executive Committee.
>
>
> No I am not.  I am asking that you bring some transparency to the
> working of the NCUC. Open the EC archives please, let's see the IM
> logs (edit for personal matters of course...)
>
>
> >Let me explain why that is not a good idea. And
> >in the process, let me clarify the facts for those who
> >do not know the full story.
> >
> >It has been clear for some time that it would be
> >a good idea for civil society groups involved in
> >Internet governance to agree on people they
> >would like to have placed on the WGIG.
> >
> >A few weeks ago you, Izumi and Jeannette initiated a
> >series of *private*  emails among selected IGC members
> >discussing whether it made sense to form a Nominating
> >Committee to come up with a list of names.
>
>
> *private*, "selected IGC members" sounds terrible doesn't it? Well,
> this is what happened:
>
> A few weeks ago Jeanette and I asked Milton for advice about an idea
> that had come up in conversation over a coffee when a guy called
> Bertrand de La Chapelle visited Tokyo and met Izumi and me (the email
> subject line was "Re: Coming to Tokyo".)  We wondered if it would be
> possible to set up a nominating committee like process to help us
> develop a slate of names civil society could put forward for the
> Working Group on Internet Governance. Just as ICANN has a nominating
> committee trying to find people to serve on the Board, etc, we
> wondered if we could use a similar process for civil society names...
> It's good to test odd ideas like it with a few smart people and
> Milton was an obvious choice being both very familiar with ICANN and
> a member of the IGC (in the same context I also asked Milton if he
> would help us draft at statement on the scope of the working group --
> you see, we have quite a lot of respect for Milton's opinion.)
>
> Well, the idea didn't work out -- from the time the email was sent
> (about August 7, I don't have a copy on this PC) we would only have
> about 6 to 8 weeks at most to get it working.  So after hearing from
> Milton (positive and helpful reply) Jeanette and realized it was
> probably not going to work. Jeanette anyway informed the WSIS civil
> society bureau about the idea, explained the pluses and minuses and
> ask the bureau members for this advice and support (The bureau is how
> civil society in WSIS coordinates procedural issues -- there are some
> thousand or so civil society organizations involved in WSIS, the
> bureau is one of the CS organizing structures.)  And we've not had
> much response form there, it seems much of the world stops for
> August...
>
>
> >In response, I gave you my full support to do
> >what needed to be done. I gave it regardless of whether
> >I was included in the NomComm or not. I said I would support
> >your right as Chairs of the IGC to form a Nom Com because
> >something needed to get done, and (as all of us knew)
> >it had to happen by September 10 or so. I really did want
> >the IGC to take the lead, and expected NCUC to work within
> >that framework.
> >
> >As we all know, nothing was concluded. This is not
> >unusual for the IGC. As an informal, totally
> >unstructured group with no processes and no real
> >organization save a mailing list, it often has problems
> >getting its act together. This does not reflect on its
> >co-chairs, it is inherent in the situation.
> >
> >So what were we to do? Nothing? Or just let the
> >IGC leadership operate as behind-the scenes
> >kingmakers, with no formal or public process?
>
> There are no kingmakers, we do not operate behind the scenes.  We
> cannot because civil society in WSIS is not structured in that way
> (basically, even if we wanted to try it would be pointless as the
> names an kingmakers provided would lack any legitimacy and Markus
> Kummer and everyone else would know they lacked legitimacy.)
>
> One more thing important to understand about civil society in WSIS is
> that the caucuses and working groups are only subgroups of the civil
> society plenary, a forum open to all civil society organizations (any
> of the thousands involved in WSIS.) The caucuses and working groups
> are essentially just special interest groups, where people interested
> in a particular issues can gather and do work on those issues.  They
> work on behalf of the plenary and defer to the plenary.  So on an
> important issue like submitting names for the Working Group on
> Internet Governance, the caucus would not submit names itself, it
> would ask advice of the plenary. The caucus would take the lead, the
> plenary would decide.  Names *must* come from the plenary or in the
> WSIS context would lack legitimacy. There is no opportunity for
> kingmaking, there is no behind-the scenes, the process is very
> public.
>
> I hope it is clear that Milton's comments (above and below) are just
> a misunderstanding.
>
> I have no problem with the NCUC submitting names.
>
> I do have a problem with the process, and I think it must be more
> transparent (I think the NCUC must be more transparent generally and
> the membership consulted before important decisions are taken.) And
> we will make no progress if every comment is met with a personal
> attack.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> >Unacceptable. It was and is unacceptable that CS groups
> >have no process to develop a list of names to forward
> >to Kummer.
> >
> >To me, it makes a lot of sense for the various CS
> >organizations involved in Internet governance to
> >develop their own ideas about who should be on the
> >WGIG. that includes NCUC, that includes ALAC, and it
> >includes anyone else deeply engaged in Internet governance
> >issues from a civil society standpoint.
> >
> >As I said in the announcement, we will work
> >with the other groups to reconcile the lists if that is
> >possible. It is clear that there are several names that
> >are acceptable to all.
> >
> >Why don't you work cooperatively
> >with us and see that something gets done, rather
> >than attacking NCUC, which seems to be the only viable
> >organizational framework we (civil society) have at the
> >moment for accomplishing this work?
> >
> >No single organization can "own"
> >civil society participation in the UN WGIG process,
> >so stop trying to do so. An IGC that can take the inputs
> >from ALAC, NCUC, and others in a fair way, and work on
> >a peer-to-peer basis with them to come up with a common
> >position, is a much stronger and more legitimate organization
> >than one that tries to put up a barbed wire fence around
> >a territory and prevent any others from entering.
> >
> >--MM
> >
> >>>>  Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> 8/21/2004 1:33:10 AM >>>
> >This sudden interest from the EC in WSIS after deciding (and not
> >informing the members) that the NCUC would not be taking part in the
> >ICANN "WSIS Workshop Planning Group" seems a bit of a change of
> >heart. And it's important that any future position statement from
> the
> >NCUC on this go through the processes we have in the charter (a
> >policy committee issue, not the administrative EC?)
> >
> >Anyway.  Some transparency please.  Please open the EC archive, and
> >backdate a couple of weeks so we can understand how this came about.
> >
> >Kind of related -- did Frannie take over the NA Executive Committee
> >seat?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >Adam Peake
> >GLOCOM Tokyo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>We need initial responses in ten days. If you put a name forward,
> >>please give us information about the person to follow up.
> >>
> >>Use this template if you wish:
> >>======================================
> >>
> >>Region:
> >>Africa
> >>    Technical
> >>    Policy
> >  >
> >>Asia-Pacific
> >>    Technical
> >>    Policy
> >>
> >>Europe:
> >>    Technical
> >>    Policy
> >>
> >>Latin America
> >>    Technical
> >>    Policy
> >>
> >>North America
> >>    Technical
> >>    Policy