<html>
<body>
On 11:50 24/10/2013, Mawaki Chango said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi,</blockquote><br>
Do not worry I was <u>voted out</u> the IETF because I defended the CS
technical interests - languages, cultures, etc.<br>
The result is that I became the facilitator of an IETF mailing list for
the CS where is no one.
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki" eudora="autourl">http://iucg.org/wiki<br>
</a>Do not get trapped into this rethoric :-)<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM,
McTim
<<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Bill,<br><br>
<dd>On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake
<<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dd>> Hi<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power
grab, a framing<br>
<dd>> that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that
one group<br>
<dd>> wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to
Dilma, they talked<br>
<dd>> and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be
fully agreed<br>
<dd>> goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to
get<br>
<dd>> organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to
include people<br>
<dd>> who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the
desirable<br>
<dd>> end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you
were there to<br>
<dd>> voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to
coordinate with the<br>
<dd>> people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own
relationship<br>
<dd>> to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that
those who do<br>
<dd>> shouldn't be able to.<br><br>
<dd>Sums it up nicely.<br><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were
invited to get involved, why do<br>
<dd>> "we" need to have a private meeting from which
"they" are excluded?<br><br>
<dd>good question!<br><br>
</dl><br>
Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single
meeting about this without CS being involved? And you know that for
certain?<br>
I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting
"intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we
get past the initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should
have joint meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes
even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states" to
use your words. But frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination
with I* orgs) OR (direct "relationship to the Brazil meeting"),
with a hint that the former is the most desirable and the latter the
least. Is my reading correct? Why can't we do both, especially if there
remain issues on which the objectives of CS and those of I* orgs are not
fully aligned?<br><br>
And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil
meeting" as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any
fetishism with summits :-) but since Jeremy also mention that change in
terminology, I thought I would ask.<br>
<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>@Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist".
Nor did I say the<br>
<dd>"technical community" should take over from
governments.<br><br>
</dl><br>
McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know.
But what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in
the first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one
can fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction,
without linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does
that, there are direct implications to what you're saying even if you
didn't voice them literally. That's also part of the complexity of
conversations involving 3 or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense)
standpoints. If you didn't question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what
went on in that meeting and just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy
about it, then I'll have to start from the same place, i.e. granting his
rendition is accurate, in my response to your question. And if his
rendition is accurate, then such state of affairs has implications that
you did not need to state explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy
with that, you are indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs.
In sum, if such (as described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if
you agree with that (as implied by your question), then my response to
you was warranted. Note that the said response is more of a commentary on
the said state of affairs than it is about what you personally think
ultimately --in case the two are different.<br><br>
Cheers!<br><br>
Mawaki <br>
<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and<br>
<dd>regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in<br>
<dd>addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance
processes. I'm not<br>
<dd>willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can<br>
<dd>instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal
processes.<br><br>
<dd>I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react.<br>
<dd>Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots
coalitions?<br><br>
<dd>--<br>
<dd>Cheers,<br><br>
<dd>McTim<br>
<dd>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it
is. A<br>
<dd>route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br><br>
<br>
<dd>____________________________________________________________<br>
<dd>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<dd>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">
governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<dd>To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
<dd>For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
<dd>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
<dd>Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br><br>
</dl><br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></body>
</html>