[governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?

[Kieren McCarthy]

I agree with Ray on this, but I would like to know *why* people aren't
involving themselves in the open fora specifically constructed to gather the
sort of input that they claiming is lacking.

 

There is a surprising lack of candour about the realities of the situation
considering the passion that exists out there.

 

Is it because:

 

*	People don't know the fora exist?
*	Feel the fora are not effective?
*	Feel the fora are controlled?
*	Because there is no clear thread from input to outcome?
*	Or is it because people simply don't like the fact that their views
do not make it through the process?
*	Because to interact is simply too time-consuming?
*	Because the methods of interaction are intimidating or difficult?

 

 

On the one side we have people wishing to design entirely new methods
without involving themselves in the ones that already exist. The Internet,
it seems, continues to give people a taste for revolution. 

 

On the other side, those working within the existing structures seem content
to dismiss those that sit outside, and so may be missing out on valuable
insight and input. 

 

 

The disconnect is there and, as ever, manifests itself in anger and
aggression - as this mailing list makes clear all too often.

 

I for one am interested in finding solutions - or, at least, having civil
conversations about why people aren't happy, rather than only reading and
responding to expressions of unhappiness. 

 

 

 

Kieren

 

  _____  

From: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak at arin.net] 
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:06 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Hakikur Rahman; Milton L Mueller; Avri Doria
Subject: RE: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
Internet resource"?

 

They why don't those who claim that the current policy fora are either non
effective or non inclusive participate in them and encourage others to do
so? How many of these persons are subscribed to the open policy discussion
lists? Why don't they advocate from a capacity building perspective work
toward enlarging the CS participation in the existing governance structures?

 

Ray

 

From: Hakikur Rahman [mailto:email at hakik.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:24 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org;
Avri Doria
Subject: RE: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
Internet resource"?

 

I will support Milton's arguments, and we should be active in policies and
governance issues. In many countries, though understanding (I would not say
that it is definition) about benefits of the Internet has made it critical,
but my understanding is that due to lack of policies (in major aspects) and
governance (never taken of), Internet couldn't reach the majority of the
community.

Best regards,
Hakik

At 01:23 AM 10/4/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote:



Avri:
I would answer your question as follows:
 
We can either spend our time in Rio debating the _definition_ of CIR, or we
can spend that time debating and discussing _the policies_ and the
_governance arrangements_ applied to CIR. We cannot do both. There is not
time to do both, and if we don't agree on what CIR is, we cannot have a
productive discussion on policies and governance arrangements.  
 
I have no doubt about which type of conversation would be more interesting
and productive. We should be discussing the policies and gov arrangements.
There are many fascinating issues there, and they are exactly the kind of
issues the Forum is supposed to be taking up. The only reason to shift the
discussion to definitions is to divert attention from a discussion of those
policies and institutions currently involved in CIR.
 

  _____  

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:23 PM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
Internet resource"?
 
hi,
 
i do not understand why trying to define cIr is not a fine question itself
and needs to defined as another question.   unless there is only one answer
and not other answer is allowed.  but why would that be?
 
some people think there is a narrow definition for cIr and some people think
there is a broad definition of cIr (i think we have ben here before).  is
only the narrow definition valid?
 
if so, i do not understand it.
 
and if they aren't supposed to be critical to users, then who are they
supposed to be critical too?
 
a.
 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/d94016f8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/d94016f8/attachment.txt>