Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Some comments on WGIG nominees

[carlos a. afonso]

[also intended to go to the list, but sent instead just to Adam -- my
mistake --c.a.]

-----Original Message-----
From: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
To: "Adam Peake" <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP>
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 <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP>
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
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