[governance] comment to subcommitte nov 15

[Avri Doria]

On 15 nov 2005, at 10.35, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote:

> I read the following text this morning.  I expect there may be  
> disgareements over two parts:
>
> 1. "We would also like to suggest that the UN Secretary General, as  
> part of its open and inclusive process, work with relevant  
> organizations including those from civil society and the Internet  
> technical community in creating the Forum."
>
> I heard some comments against including "Internet technical  
> community" and

as the person who suggested the inclusion of internet technical  
community in the statement, i would like to explain:

i have generally argued that the technical community is a 4th sector  
in the whole WSIS process that has been somewhat marginalized by  
having to try and fit itself into the tripartite ITU partitioning.  i  
think that when we talk about the stakeholders going forward this  
community should be represented.  for policy related to technical  
issues, to not include them risks continued balkanization on the  
issue.  so in formation of the Forum, i believe that civil society  
and the technical community should participate, and i do not believe  
they are the same community, though of course there are overlaps.

now generally they refer to themselves as the internet community, but  
i believe this is inaccurate because the internet community is wider  
then the technical communtiy and i do not believe that these  
organizations represent the entire internet community - therefore the  
modifier.


>
> 2. "The IETF model is appropriate for dealing with technical  
> standards relating to the Internet, but alone does not provide an  
> suitable model for addressing complex public policy debates which  
> require a discursive deliberative  process rather than the  
> resolution of technical problems. "
>
> This was a reaction to ISOC's presentation made a few minuets   
> before discussion aspects of the forum might which emphasized the  
> Internet technical community.  And did not mention broader civil  
> society.  Saying IETF *alone*  does not provide a suitable model  
> seems to balance the issue in 1.

I agree with the content of the statement, though i believe that its  
immediate juxtaposition to the isoc statement, came off as a rebuttal  
of the isoc statement as opposed to indicating that there are many  
models that should be explored.  so to some it looked like in  
fighting: isoc says something, IGC contradicts it in the next  
statement..


a.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance