[bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees

[McTim]

Guru,

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here, comments inline:

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> The readily knowable / public facts are - in response to a request, IGC
> nominated two people

correct, but our expectation that 2 would be appointed was not based in reality.

 and you did not figure in that list. What is the
> 'expertise' for which you were selected, which the people nominated could
> not have provided?

NOt that BD needs any defending, but I would say that several decades
of working in the public interest on Internet and telecoms policy with
specialisation on ICANN issues that many on the HLP are not conversant
with seems to me to be reasonable 'expertise".



 Quite a few people on this list raised this uncomfortable
> issue. Abuse is no substitute for argument and your language suggests you
> have none.



I don't see why there is any argument that he needs to raise.  He was
asked to play a role.  That role was NOT to be on the HLP, but rather
to teach those on the HLP some things so that they could be
"up-to-speed".


>
>
> In any event, this enlightening exchange underscored the concerns Avri
> raised your criteria's likely abuse in the service of a narrow ideology and
> the value of considering representatives who are inclined to interact with
> others in a civil and professional manner.
>
>
> To use Avri's phrase of a 'tent view', we all agree the current tent itself
> under-represents many views. Instead of expanding that view, you are
> proposing using the 'narrow ideology' of club membership to further exclude
> those who ask uncomfortable questions.
>
> This can be  a setback to CS and denies its important role of accountability
> seeking, which has become even more important in the post Snowden scenario.


I don't see why accountability is any more important now.

rgds,

McTim