Adam, It is clear to me now that you, as co-chair of the WSIS-CS Internet governance caucus (IGC) perceived this initiative of ours as a kind of threat. I apologize for that, it was intended in just the opposite way, as a help. 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. You have attacked NCUC's legitimacy on the WSIS lists, and now you are attacking the NCUC's Executive Committee. 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. 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? 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