<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Raul,<BR>
<BR>
It may be helpful to observe the facts that sparked this conversation.<BR>
<BR>
Namely, from the record of written statements and interventions in this open discussion, as well as Milton's subjective veew as reported in his blog, it appears/looks like ITAA & ISOC & ICC & USG (& ETNO?) coordinated to try to stifle 'debate' at IGF III.<BR>
<BR>
At IGF, not in their own fora.<BR>
<BR>
Or should I say excuse me, because I should have said they tried to promote 'dialogue' and education instead of debate?<BR>
<BR>
This is not a knock on IETF or LACNIC or anyone else including USG, it is just an observation of what looks like a coordinated effort to limit 'debate' at IGF. In which technical community representatives were one but not the only players trying this tactic.<BR>
<BR>
So the question perhaps should be more nuanced, why is debate a good thing in some fora but not in IGF?<BR>
<BR>
Frankly it is frustrating to me that folks representing a few of the various stakeholder 'technical' communities at the global level still try to pull this silliness in 2008.<BR>
<BR>
For example, I believe many would agree that perhaps the best shot at sorting through the complexities and inter-dependencies to really make the IPv4 to v6 transition happen, if it ever will, is multistakeholder debate and discussion - including at IGF. Since if IPv4 to v6 was just a technical issue for the technical community to handle itself we might guess it would have been done long ago.<BR>
<BR>
So in my opinion the odds are the very best shot at sorting out the holdups is a very lively debate or 2 or 3, at IGF. A technical lecture educating the policy masses on how the bits line up would be a waste of time and space at a policy/governance form. As an example of why 'debate' at IGF is a good thing, and not something to be feared. Remember IGF can't make anyone do anything, so I really don;t see what people are afraid of. <BR>
<BR>
Lee<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: raul@lacnic.net [<A HREF="mailto:raul@lacnic.net">mailto:raul@lacnic.net</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thu 9/18/2008 3:45 PM<BR>
To: Jeanette Hofmann<BR>
Cc: governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
Subject: Re: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation<BR>
<BR>
> Hi Raul,<BR>
> I guess there are a few misunderstandings...<BR>
><BR>
> Raul Echeberria wrote:<BR>
>> Jeanette:<BR>
>><BR>
>> i completely disagree with your assertion and I have to confess that I<BR>
>> am very surprised to see you saying that.<BR>
>> The Technical community doesn't exist in the sense that you try to<BR>
>> describe. There are not a lot of closed and secret lists<BR>
><BR>
> I didn't speak of closed or secret lists. I am subscribed to several<BR>
> technical lists myself.<BR>
<BR>
It is implied in what you said. You say that technical community members<BR>
among themselves speak in some way and in a different way when speak with<BR>
other people. It implieas a vision according which technical community<BR>
people only speak for technical community in their lists, and it is not<BR>
true since all the forums are open and transparents.<BR>
<BR>
the controversies, debates, discussions and different view expressed,<BR>
simply could not be hidden.<BR>
<BR>
..........<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>> It is also very unfair what you said regarding the "educational"<BR>
>> attitude.<BR>
><BR>
> Milton referred to the discussion we had about the structure and<BR>
> direction of the main session on IPv4/IPv6 at the next IGF meeting. It<BR>
> wasn't easy to come to an agreement. Different ideas about the focus and<BR>
> the purpose of the session played a role here, as you know.<BR>
<BR>
It was not so difficult. It was the first Main session Workshop in being<BR>
ready and perhaps we should think that the different ideas expressed are<BR>
based in legitimate different views that anybody involved in that<BR>
discussion had. I think that there was good faith in frank and open<BR>
discussion. Is it bad?<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> You have had a lot of opporuntities to partcipate in deep<BR>
>> frank and open discussions with many "technical community" people.<BR>
><BR>
> Yes, this is true. And I wouldn't say that all engineers hide<BR>
> controversies. Yet, without wanting to be unfair, it is still true that<BR>
> I am puzzled by the differences of the ways issues are presented within<BR>
> engineering communities and outside of it.<BR>
<BR>
Different forums have different characteristics and some things that are<BR>
proposed in the IGF for example are not proposed in other given forums and<BR>
viceversa.<BR>
Speaking about the small part of the techical community world that<BR>
corresponds to LACNIC, we spent a lot of energies and resources in<BR>
engaging other stakeholders in the discussions with big success<BR>
fortunately trying to be everytime more open and have more participation<BR>
(using always a single speech, not changing it according our convenience).<BR>
Many people in this list is witness of that.<BR>
And without trying to speak on behalf of others, I know that this is not<BR>
that only LACNIC does.<BR>
<BR>
So, it is very frustrating for me when I see the way in which you describe<BR>
the behavior of the technical community because some people that read that<BR>
and ignore how do we work and the efforts we make, can get a very wrong<BR>
impression.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Raùl<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
<BR>
For all list information and functions, see:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>