[bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism

[Mawaki Chango]

But in all these discussions, do we even factor in the fact that English is
not a language everybody (not matter how bright) can speak, understand and
work in? How many billion people on this earth are in that category? How
many governments around the world have English as, if not their official,
at least one of their working languages? You already have that which
filters out so many people, before even subtracting more on the basis of
technical literacy. Where does that leave us/ this idealized model?

Maybe we should have a universal course called "Internet Infrastructure" or
something like that, to be taught in all curricula around the world in both
English and the local education language? Something like a basic literacy
thing that will be taught at all levels with increasing complexity along
levels of education -- a bit like we all did math until the end of high
school? Only then, I can give some credence to the BS
"multi-equal"-whatever meme, graciously accepting the fact that some of us
will still have to work in two languages to be equal.

Mawaki



On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:

> Avri Doria [2013-11-30 15:22]:
> > I don't know about how many government types use their government
> > email l. Not sure i understand why that matters. We see bunches using
> > other addresses in IGF space, so I am nor sure it is a clear
> > indicator. In any case I will see if there are any stats.
>
> I guess one other way to look at it would be to ask:
>   * Has any government official ever co-authored an RFC?
>   * Has any government official (especially non-US) ever participated in
> IETF discussions in an official capacity?
>
> McTim [2013-11-30 18:19]:
> > It's a great example.  Can you name other settings in Internet policy
> that
> > has folks operating as equals without being divided by silos?  Where
> > government folks and CS and people who run telco networks all have the
> same
> > status?
>
> Who are these "government folks" that are being talked about?  Sure,
> they're "free" to come join the discussion, but unless they are actually
> part of the discussions, it makes little sense to talk of them having
> the "same status".[1]  Formal equality vs. actual equality.
>
> Please note, I'm not making an argument that IETF should change and try
> and get government participation.  I'm just saying that governments
> haven't participated in IETF.
>
>   [1]: On the moon ants and antelopes have the same status.
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director
> Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
> --------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow
> Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131203/7cdb7ba8/attachment.htm>