[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
wjdrake at gmail.com
Tue Dec 24 10:46:01 UTC 2013
I was just writing to the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) about the names it’s forwarding as academic representatives on the 1net Coordinating Committee per Adiel’s instructions,
On Nov 18, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:
> There was a general agreement to have a steering committee composed of 5 reps from each group (Business, Civil Society, Technical, Academic). It will be good if each group starts identifying their reps.
and was trying to explain what we need to do next vis. the two SP committees, and realized that I didn’t quite understand what LOG’s saying about the representation of academia. So sorry, but here’s some more questions for your deconstruction.
On Dec 21, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee
> The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations
> and for encouraging the participation of the international community.
> It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries
> (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12
> non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the
> UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil
> society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN
> stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will
> be composed of 26 people.
This formulation would seem to suggest that the LOG thinks either a) that the "technical and academia community" is actually a single category, which would be a throw-back to the nonsensical UN WSIS formulation (which inter alia implies that the only “academics" worth including are technical people, not social scientists etc…and we’d be on the 1net CC but have no role in its work re: SP); or b) that the technical and academia communities (plural and partially overlapping, as in reality) should in collaboration agree and provide four names, perhaps 2/2 (which I imagine the TC would not welcome).
> The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance.
This formulation would seem to suggest a third option, which is to match the 4 SG representation structures of 1net with that of the HLMC by revising your math as 12 = 4 SGs x 3 slots rather than 12 = 2 SG x 4 slots + 2 half-SG x 2 slots. Unless you mean 1 Brazilian and 3 globals, in which case we’re back to a) or b).
Of course, the instruction that HLMC reps should be “executive level” doesn’t map well to academics, so it could anyway happen that the 1net CC academic reps simply give their support to appropriate reps of other SGs.
In any event, if you could please clarify LOG's mental mapping and math, that’d help everyone to know how to proceed.
> 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee
> The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC.
> There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are
> Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO
> of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be
> appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to
> Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the
> LOG by 1Net.
> For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee
> two names as soon as possible.
You said in your 20 December reply to my prior questions that the EMC will have "8 non-gov people appointed trough the 1Net mechanism, so we will need to make sure there is a proper pluralist
balance here….I know, 8 is not divisible by three stakeholders... but we will have to accommodate Brazilian stakeholders as well.” So in this case, are you saying that LOG envisions 2 Brazilians and 6 globals comprising 2 CS, 2 business, and 2 what you’ve called "academia/techies”? So either non-technical academics are excluded, or two in-reality different groupings should agree or split two slots? Both raise issues... We do need clarity here as there may be greater interest among academic stakeholders in the EMC than in the HLMC (given that it’s more of a substantive program committee, our forte). Whereas in the case of the co-chairs it’d be 1 Brazilian, 1 global TC, 1 CS and 1 business, i.e. no academia?
Fuzzy categories = fuzzy math, eh?
Any guidance would be much appreciated.
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss