<html>
<body>
<br>
At 08:19 05/08/14 +0300, McTim wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite>Dear Izumi/Avri,<br><br>
On 8/14/05, Izumi AIZU <aizu@anr.org> wrote:<br>
> I think IETF model may not work for the forum which<br>
> is "multistakeholder" and "inclusive", to
facilitate or ensure<br>
> full participation from all stakeholders including those from<br>
> developing countries.<br><br>
The IETF is open and inclusive for all who are interested. <br>
CS, PS, govt, and academics all participate. This is currently how
IG<br>
is done. People who are interested participate.</blockquote><br><br>
Opening the door does not necessarily mean it is open in reality.<br>
We need to think about "meaningful and effective
participation".<br><br>
Here is the exerts from the WGIG report, and I think at least some parts
of<br>
these languages do apply to ICANN and IETF.<br><br>
19. <b>Meaningful participation in global
policy development<br>
</b>There are significant barriers to multi-stakeholder participation in
governance mechanisms.<br>
There is often a lack of transparency, openness and participatory
processes. <br><br>
Participation in some intergovernmental organizations and other
international organizations is often limited and expensive, especially
for developing countries, indigenous peoples, civil society
organizations, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).<br><br>
There is a lack of a global mechanism for participation by Governments,
especially from developing countries, in addressing multisectoral issues
related to global Internet policy development.<br><br>
<br>
People who are interested and who has resources participate,<br>
but people who are interested but have no resources cannot
participate,<br>
and people who may not be explicitly interested now but who are
affected<br>
by the decisions and potentially interested should be taken into
consideration,<br>
say for the outreach or "participatory processes".<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite> <br>
> That requires more than "simple" secretariat I am
afraid.<br><br>
Why?</blockquote><br>
As I said above, you need outreach effort, too. And even to carry<br>
out facilitation, you need more than "simple" function, ie, you
need<br>
good listening, careful evaluation of all different voices etc. I
mean<br>
it's not that simple, but politically and strategically correct.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite> <br>
> IETF has essentially simpler objective with similar, if not<br>
> the same, minded people, and the organization evolved<br>
> over time with less "political" bias.<br><br>
How does this have a bearing on the organsisation of a Forum? IETF<br>
folk all have the interest of stable, secure Internetworking, same
as<br>
WGIG folk.</blockquote><br>
WGIG folks have interest in "stable, secure Internetworking"
as<br>
well as other interests. <br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite>> <br>
> The Forum is very different in nature. <br><br>
The Forum doesn't yet exist, so how can this be the case?<br><br>
The Forum is whatever we make it. I see it as a group of people who<br>
are interested in IG, tracking what is being done and by whom.<br><br>
Depending solely<br>
> on "volunteers" may give more privileges to those who<br>
> have more resources and can afford to be volunteers.<br><br>
Sort of like this mailing list? ;-)<br><br>
Seriously though, if you want to bring in more folk from developing<br>
economies, having a series of f2f meetings is defintiely NOT the way<br>
forward.</blockquote><br>
Well, I kind of agree, but that is only one side of the coin.<br><br>
In order to make effective dialogue (and decisions), online tools are not
enough<br>
in reality. <br><br>
That is why there are still so many f2f meetings, that also address<br>
developing countries concerns. AND, IETF is a good example in
this<br>
case as it still keeps three f2f meetings a year. You can learn,<br>
interact, and usually achieve a lot more in the f2f meetings with<br>
other people than online meetings. In a way, it is much more
effective<br>
in terms of raising awareness, giving motivations in a limited
amount<br>
of time.<br><br>
Folks in developing parts of the world has less bandwidth, tools, <br>
time, people and other resources anyway, so that even virtual forums<br>
often result in the disadvantage to the less privileged. Virtual
forum<br>
is NOT the silver bullet I am afraid, it is a good supplementary
tool,<br>
but not the solution per se.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite>> <br>
> And, who paid for IETF secretariat? And who is paying it
now<br><br>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives??<br>
<a href="http://ietf.nri.reston.va.us/secretariat.html" eudora="autourl">
http://ietf.nri.reston.va.us/secretariat.html</a><br><br>
I don't know when they started "hosting" the secretariat, so I
don't<br>
know when the suport began.<br><br>
ISOC subsidises the costs of the IETF that are not borne by meeting fees
(IIRC).<br><br>
> <br>
> That is another critical question.<br><br>
ACK. Which is why I think it could be lightweight/virtual.<br><br>
> <br>
> And I don't think it could function well if it is "all
virtual".<br><br>
<br>
I don't think it will fulfill it's goal of being more inclusive<br>
utilising "meat space".<br><br>
In order to bring in developing world folk, most of the work should
be<br>
virtual, open, transparent, etc. In other words, easily accessible. <br>
Setting up a twiki (for example) is much more accessible than<br>
expensive meetings.</blockquote><br>
Again, for you that could be more accessible, but not all in the<br>
developed parts of the world, or non-English speaking people<br>
if it were done in English Wikis.<br><br>
I think we need to combine both online and offline environment.<br>
I am not opposing to the use of online tools per se, but denying<br>
the f2f and just put too much empahsis to online will not help<br>
solve the real issues which are vastly in the offline world.<br><br>
thanks,<br><br>
izumi<br>
</body>
</html>