Carlos:

First, don't forget to use "reply all" if you respond to this ;-)

Second, more interesting to me than your belief that Bill
is smart (which does not really respond to the concerns that
were raised about him) is the question of your own status,
or the status of other Latin Americans who might be suitable
for the WGIG. Are you interested in this position, are there
others from the region, other than the "usual suspects,"
whose names might be put forward?

--MM


>>> "carlos a. afonso" <[log in to unmask]> 08/23/04 11:35PM >>>
[also intended to go to the list, but sent instead just to Adam -- my
mistake --c.a.]

-----Original Message-----
From: "carlos a. afonso" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Adam Peake" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 12:17:48 -0300
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Some comments on WGIG nominees

Well, I feel like I am a more stringent critic than Bill regarding the
whole ICANN structure (hard for me to say and swallow the inevitable
truth: we do not have another one to look forward to at this point, so
let us try and work inside it but anchored on a strong political
guidance from the outside ot it).

I have had the opportunity to work with Bill in the context of an SSRC
program (one of the most brilliant fellows I ever met), and I must
agree
with Adam here, but, again, let us make sure we follow a fully open
procedure for a suggested names' list.

I would not dare calling it nomination, since the WG will in essence
decide "internally" who will be able to join the group, as I grasped
from three meetings with Markus in KL (we could not stand each other
anymore ::))).

fraternal rgds

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:46:30 +0900
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Some comments on WGIG nominees

> Actually, I was trying to make a different point when I mentioned
> Paul, Bill, Susan, etc.  Anyway...
>
> >
> >>Bill Drake (who has made v. important contributions to WSIS civil
> >>society on ICT governance, understands the ICT for development
> >>aspects
> >
> >I know Bill well. He is part of my world, an academic political
> >scientist
> >with a good knowledge of global governance processes. His strength
> >is in traditional telecom institutions like ITU and trade in
> telecomm
> >services
> >in the WTO. "ICT for development" has never been one of his
research
> >areas and he doesn't spend time in developing countries, so don't
> >oversell
> >him there Adam. He is smart and creative and would be very vocal.
He
> is
> >
> >just as undiplomatic as Karl Auerbach, he is reknowned for his
> >directness.
> >(Might be interesting for Adam to explain the double standard
here.)
>
>
> I find Bill to be diplomatic, and anyone who has seen him work in
> WSIS would agree. And I really do object to everything been turned
to
> personal attack "Adam to explain the double standard here."
>
> Stop it.
>
>
> >I have two problems with Bill. One is that he has had real trouble
> >grasping
> >and accepting the importance of ICANN as a governance model,
> >and the importance of the ICANN issue in the creation of the WGIG.
> >He has never attended an ICANN meeting, and his technical knowledge
> >of Internet is weak. As late as December 2003 he was insisting that
> >the WSIS Internet Governance Caucus rename itself the "Global ICT
> >Governance" caucus because Internet governance was so "narrow and
> >unimportant."
> >
> >The other is that I think the other two No. American nominees are
> >preferable. I think that Susan Crawford has given much more thought
> >to the broad range of IG issues, and that Pam Samuelson
> >has a much better grasp of the central IPR issues, and so would
> prefer
> >
> >the other names for North America over him. But I would not
consider
> >him
> >unacceptable.
>
>
> This is a very unfair and inaccurate description of Bill Drake's
work
> generally, and work in WSIS specifically (out of context as usual.)
> It's all public record and I hope we will not see selective quoting
> to try and distort that record.
>
> This is a very good example of why the "winnowing process" must be
> done in public, not the private method suggested. Too often we are
> not able to be impartial when personalities are involved.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> >Re: Pindar Wong - I am surprised to see him nominated by Norbert.
> >Pindar is a very smart man. He pioneered the ISP industry in Hong
> >Kong (and cleverly sold off the business just before the rush
> >of competition made it unprofitable). He was an ICANN Board
> >member appointed by the ASO. He was a key figure in the formation
> >of the Asia Internet Association, an ISP trade association. Pindar
> is
> >the consummate insider. He fulfills all the criteria that Adam
> thinks
> >Karl
> >Auerbach doesn't have: he won't rock the boat, he will be
> diplomatic,
> >he will make insider deals. The problem is, there is no real nexus
> with
> >
> >the values and principles of this constituency. I've known him and
> >watched
> >him for years and I don't know what he believes on policy issues;
he
> >seems
> >to be a pure pragmatist. He is a businessman. He has personal
> >integrity. But
> >I do not see how he can be expected to represent or give voice to
> the
> >values
> >and policies favored by civil society in a global process. And I
> don't
> >think
> >he would be answerable to civil society; I think his identity as a
> >businessman
> >and insider would override other considerations, although I do
think
> he
> >would
> >make an effort to communicate with us.
> >
> >--MM