Some comments on WGIG nominees

[Adam Peake]

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