[WSIS CS-Plenary] WGIG Chronogical Account (text version)

[Adam Peake]

At 1:45 AM +0100 1/21/05, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote:
>    Text version of
>http://www.wsis-pct.org/wgig.html
>
>
>
>    * Chronogical Account of the Civil Society Process concerning the
>    Establishment of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
>    <http://www.wgig.org>
>
>    *


Francis, thank you for your attempt at a chronology of events.

I must apologize for being quiet during this discussion to date, busy 
with some very hectic travel and I am reading email in a very 
asynchronous way. But I would like to make some comments on this text 
as it seems to be presented as some kind of official history of 
events.

(Also, <http://www.too-much.tv> mentioned is down at the moment -- 
domain name problem.)


>
>At 10:35 AM +0900 9/7/04, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>
>>After much deliberation on the process by which the candidate list 
>>would be compiled, we, as coordinators of the Internet Governance 
>>caucus have made the decision to invite each of the WSIS civil 
>>society caucuses and working groups to suggest between one (1) and 
>>three (3) names for inclusion on the candidate list.
>>
>>There is not agreement for this course of action among members of 
>>the IG Caucus, but time is pressing and we feel WSIS Civil Society 
>>must have an opportunity to participate in this process.  This can 
>>work if we all try to make it work.  It means trying to think what 
>>is best for civil society, and not any particular interest group. 
>>Please read this note carefully. And refer to the draft statement 
>>on structure of the WGIG you can find at this URL 
>><http://www.too-much.tv/internet_governance/> (Spanish, French, 
>>English and Portuguese.)
>>
>


And


>
>At 10:35 AM +0900 9/7/04, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>  By asking for nominations from all of WSIS civil society we are 
>>inviting a potentially large number of names to be submitted. Some 
>>means of reducing the composite list we receive may be required. We 
>>look forward to your advice on how we might handle this situation, 
>>it is quite likely. We suggest discussions about this are started 
>>now on the CS plenary list.
>>


Here is the crucial issue we are concerned about now.

We warned it might be necessary to reduce the total number of 
nominees (from something like 29 caucuses and WG and an anticipated 
5-9 places) to a slate we could propose to Mr. Kummer. We asked for 
advice from Civil Society about how to do this.  No advice was given.

We had raised the same issue earlier in the summer to the Bureau 
(Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:54:20 +0900) and to the Plenary (Date: 
Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:21:10 +0900) and I think also to Content and 
Themes when asking for advice on the statement about the structure of 
the WGIG (the translated draft referred to above. I don't have a full 
archive to refer to now.) It was an issue argued over in the Internet 
governance caucus where some members felt that it would be impossible 
for the plenary (collective caucuses and WG) to agree on shortlist of 
names.

We very clearly flagged that reducing the number suggested by all 
caucuses (29+ to 5-9) might be a problem.

We tried to present ideas for caucuses to follow that would help 
reduce the potential problem, i.e. the criteria for making 
recommendations (broadminded people who would be willing to represent 
CS interests, listen and communicate), working with other caucuses 
and thinking about the needs of civil society and diversity rather 
than the narrower interests of the particular caucus/WG.

With this background of course the nominating process wasn't perfect. 
However no one was able to offer advise when we asked.  It is 
disturbing that half a year later all we get is criticism.

So what we have is an imperfect process that produced good results. 
By any standard of what Civil Society has achieved in WSIS to date 
our position in WGIG is strong.

Towards the end of your history you write:


>
>At 1:45 AM +0100 1/21/05, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote:
>
>>*Negative aspects* : The Internet Governance Caucus 
>><http://www.net-gov.org/> made a formal call to all working groups 
>>to submit candidates that shall have been included in the list of 
>>candidates that shall have been forwarded to Markus Kummer. It was 
>>extremely clear : / In making your caucuses/working groups 
>>recommendation, we request that you submit the following 
>>information, which will be passed on to Mr. Kummer, with the names 
>>of the candidates /.
>>However, none of the candidates that have been selected by the 
>>various thematic working groups and forwarded in time to Internet 
>>Governance Caucus <http://www.net-gov.org/> have been included in 
>>the candidates' list for WGIG membership, that has been presented 
>>to Markus Kummer, in complete disregard with the rationale and 
>>promise of the call made by the Internet Governance Caucus
>
>


What I wrote was:


>
>At 10:35 AM +0900 9/7/04, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>
>>Members of the Internet governance caucus will aggregate the names 
>>received and send them along with the name of the caucus/working 
>>groups that made the nomination to Markus Kummer.  If any 
>>reconsideration of names is required in light of issues arising 
>>from the WGIG consultation on September 20-21 we will hold any 
>>relevant discussions about this on the plenary mailing list.
>>
>



Once the caucus' nominations had been received we told Mr. Kummer the 
URL <http://www.net-gov.org/wgig/nominees.php> We did this before we 
started the process of trying to present the reduced list. 
Information about all caucus nominees is still online.

It was then necessary to create a reduced list and Izumi Aizu wrote 
in email informing Mr. Kummer of our recommendations:


>>At 10:19 PM +0900 10/6/04, Adam Peake wrote:

   [I am quoting from Izumi's email I forwarded to the plenary list]

>>>
>>>We have setup a website for all the candidates recommended from
>>>different Caucuses and Working Group/Families:
>>>


I think you imply that information about candidates was kept from Mr. 
Kummer. This is not correct.

OK.


I hope it is clear that a great deal of time and effort went into 
providing information to all the different civil society structures. 
We tried to provide information about the process as best we knew it. 
We asked for advice. We tried repeatedly to include and listen to all 
civil society. We also repeatedly said that we had no intention of 
trying to prevent any other caucus from recommending names to Mr. 
Kummer.

We did not control deadlines we had to meet.  We had other issues to 
consider such as recommendations about the structure and processes 
the WGIG would adopt (also very successful from CS point of view.) 
And there was of course lobbying from various people, which is always 
tiresome to deal with (i.e. politely ignore.)

We -- and now I also speak for Jeanette -- are very pleased to have 
been involved with the work of the Internet governance caucus over 
the past year.  Civil society is very prominently positioned in this 
important part of WSIS phase two. We think the caucus has been 
extremely successful in all interactions on WSIS Internet governance 
(now the WGIG) to date.

Thanks,

Adam