Names for the Working Group on InternetGovernance

[Adam Peake]

Milton, sorry, I don't think I maligned Karl in any way. I think he's
a good person, just not right for the WGIG.

The problem with the way you have set this up is the feeling I have
that if  I comment on one I should comment on all.  So I have been
"for" Karen and "against" Karl.  And I have said nothing about Paul
Wilson, (who I think would be a very strong WGIG member), or Bill
Drake (who has made v. important contributions to WSIS civil society
on ICT governance, understands the ICT for development aspects,
another potentially strong member), Susan Crawford, Meryem (very
important work WSIS) etc etc. So I kind of feel I am almost maligning
them by not commenting!

Anyway, back to Karl.  (who I am cc'ing as someone sent him an
earlier email. Hope that did not offend, particularly out of context.)

I referred to a statement you made about the types of person you said
we should be considering.


At 12:24 PM -0400 8/18/04, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>This is a very high-level international committee that requires
>seasoned, experienced members who are diplomatic,
>knowledgable, and capable of working in an intensely politicized
>environment.
>

And I responded to this -- what was the point of it if we weren't to
consider it?

I said:

He's not very diplomatic: well he's not!  And to the best of my
knowledge he has no experience working in a UN type environment, and
no experience in ICT for development, no background in WSIS.

Karl is very interesting when talking about ICANN. I agree he was
marginalized on the board, but I also remember him doing little to
stop that happening. He's strikes me as a bit of a maverick.  We need
smart mavericks, but not on WGIG which will be a multi-stakeholder
group most likely even more complex and difficult to work than the
ICANN board (I say this because of the expected presence of
government representatives and the influence of WSIS
intergovernmental process.) I see no evidence of Karl being a
consensus builder in this kind of environment.

And I really don't think he communicated well from the board.  I
participated in ICANN meetings up to/including Shanghai 27-31 October
2002. And attended NCUC meetings or was around to know what went on,
and I think all At Large meetings during that time.

If the WGIG were about ICANN reform I would perhaps have a different
opinion.  And Internet governance in WSIS is *not* about ICANN, it's
clearly only a sub-plot.

I won't propose an technical NAM alternative.  Frankly, I don't think
the way you a proposing Policy/Technical makes sense.  Of 10, a few
with enough tech knowledge to correct misunderstandings, check on
what's possible, understand expert consultations, discuss peoples
problems in general consultations, would be more than adequate. It
would be more sensible to ask what issue will the WGIG probably
address and do we have people who will understand the technical
issues involved. Of 10, three (example) might be technically oriented
(note "oriented", broadband backgrounds -- as you mentioned, someone
like Paul Wilson-- rather than a technologist.)

And I need to make clear that I am speaking in my personal capacity.
While I have some firm ideas about the types of person that should
serve on the WGIG, I have no set views on the names of people who
should be proposed (though obviously I have some thoughts on should
not be, but would be pleased to hear reasons why I'm wrong about that
-- haven't seen any so far.)

Thanks,

Adam



>Adam,
>I appreciate your willingness to bluntly express
>opinions about nominees.
>
>But I don't agree with your assessment of Karl at all.
>I know that you have much more moderate and
>protective views about ICANN than Karl (and I),
>but if you disagree with his policy positions you
>need to make that clear, not malign his personality
>and spread provably wrong statements about his
>participation.
>
>I think Karl has gotten a bad rap because the
>early ICANN self-selected Board deliberately
>tried to isolate and marginalize him. The Board
>did some really nasty things, like instantly modifying
>the bylaws so that he and other the elected members
>could not participate in the new TLD selection, or
>forming an Executive Committee composed of a small
>minority of cronies which made all the real decisions, and
>then railroading those decisions . To resist this, Karl
>ended up looking like a marginalized, protest
>Board member - which he was. But the point is that
>the ICANN Board at that time badly NEEDED a
>vocal protest member.
>
>Regarding communication, Karl appeared in as many if
>not more NCUC meetings than any other Board member -
>but it would be hard for you to know that, Adam,
>because you almost never attend NCUC meetings.
>I think the last NCUC meeting you attended was
>in Yokohama 2000, which preceded Karl's installment
>as a Board member. While you are a valued participant
>on our list, I sincerely believe that Karl has
>appeared in more NCUC/NCDNHC meetings than
>you.
>
>Regarding list communication, I think if you
>check the NCDNHC archives from the period when
>our list was open, you will find active participation
>from Feb.-April 2002. It is true that he showed more
>interest in At Large than NCDNHC most of the time.
>But: 1) he was elected by the At Large, and 2)
>the nomination is for a civil society representative,
>not an NCUC representative per se.
>
>If you can, try to put forward a technically-oriented
>person from NorthAmerica who is more accountable and
>more wise to the ways of Internet governance politics than
>Karl.
>
>--MM