The WGIG nominations

[Milton Mueller]

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 <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 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