<html>
<body>
At 01:12 14/06/2010, Eric Dierker wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">(mine in italics)<br>
--- On <b>Sun, 6/13/10, JFC Morfin <i><jefsey@jefsey.com></i></b>
wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>I am afraid you are missing the fact that this is among MAG reps.
<br><br>
<dd>Not at all. MAG Members are not in any way chosen for their ability
to be chairs.</i></blockquote>
</dl><br>
They are chosen for grosso modo understanding what is discussed. This is
enough.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>Because I am not legitimate judging who would actually do better.
What counts is not who is "better", but if we have a position.
That anyone from our community consensually agrees with. A Chair does not
advocate and does not pursue a personal agenda. He represents a
consensus. Thay guy will be far more credible and legitimage that one
brillant specialist pushing what everyone knows to be his pet
idea.</blockquote><br>
<dd>If one accepts the idea that all people can intuitively lead then you
are right. </i></blockquote>
</dl><br>
The mistake you do is to mix chairmanship and leadership. One is a
function, the other is a talent. This mix-up is very American
"Republican". The British Queen chairs, but do not leads.
Everybody is familiar that all the eldest babies born in the Windsor
familly will do a reasonable king/queen. No one expect it to be a
leader. Same for most of the Govs round the world. Look at the
German President.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>Why do technical engineering folks think that because they are good
at that --- what other people train and educate for,, engineers can just
naturally do well?? It is a confounding and arrogant attitude that hurts
Internet Governance. The total lack of respect for other
disciplines.</i></blockquote>
</dl><br>
I miss you point here.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd> 2 points where this is clear above <br>
<dd>-- If the Chair does not adopt the consensus as his personal agenda
then he cannot do his job. </i></blockquote>
</dl><br>
No. If the chair does not respect the rough consensus. The internet would
not exist otherwise. (cf. the way IETF works).<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>And - doing the job "better" is treated here like all
idiots can lead - </i></blockquote>
</dl><br>
You confuse to lead and to chair.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>it is just social and therefor anyone can do it. These positions
evidence disdain for governance not support of. It is ok to hate
politicians, it is ok to think that all in "government" are
corrupt and useless as tits on a bull -- but it is not ok to work on
governance with that approach.</i></blockquote>
</dl><br>
I am afraid you have several "a priori" here. If you want to
discuss governance, you have to approach it in a neutral manner. And
start from the basic question: what is governance about? to permit
billions of people to autonomously freely best use the Internet along
with their personal agenda. And then proceed. This will make you address
the Chair and the MAG (if such a thing should exist) in due time, in a
coherent perspective with your own thoughts and the Internet culture
(which by the way is deeply and fastly changing with the young and
progressive integration [this is no more "consideration"] of
multiplication in addition to growth in its development scheme (IDNA2008,
IAB Draft on IDNs, my appeal) to match diversity. Let understand that
what ICANN is about (cf. State Department) is class IN domain names.
Users, i.e. including what is currently tagged as "civil
society" have 65,000 others. This is in the code, i.e. in the
Constitution. Today, the ISOCANN culture uses only two presentations
(default and extended names (xn)); there are billions of them for us to
use.<br><br>
In such a context, leaders with personal agenda are certainly not people
we need as chairs. Governance is about "net keeping". Net
keepers must not feel otherwise than the servants of the "net
users/owners": i.e. all of us. Their charisma is to be one of us in
order to best illustrate us. One does not decide anything by vote after
convincing Reps. One try to write a consensus from what billions of
people consent.<br><br>
jfc<br>
</body>
</html>