[governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas?

[McTim]

On 9/6/07, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> McTim wrote:
>
> > > somebody from the IANA (David Conrad?)
> > > somebody from the RIR communities (Alain Aina?)
> > > somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?)
> > > somebody from an IPv6 NGO (Jordi Palet?)
> > > somebody from a rootserver (Paul Vixie/Dan Karrenberg?)
> > > somebody from the CS/.org domain field (Alexa Raad?)
>
>
> Also one may wonder why so many who thought and opined (judging from their
> organizational affiliations) that CIR was not important to discuss at the
> IGF and we shd instead be discussing 'access',

Probably because it's more important?

till CIR finally came on the
> agenda despite them, are now keen to be speakers on the CIR issue (or,
> rather, others are keen on their behalf).

now it's on the agenda, I assumed that usefulness of speakers would be
directly related to their knowledge and experience in these areas.

Carlos, I can certainly suggest folk from south of the Equator if needed, since
I live ON the Equator, I see folk from North and South.

>
> Is it that while they still think CIRs do not constitute an important area
> of public policy to discuss at the IGF, they need to be there to counter
> some conspiratorial attempts that may be made using the avenue of open
> discussions on CIRs. In this case, in line with my email on 'who is afraid
> of the IGF', lets discuss those fears and 'conspiracy designs' openly than
> through some proxy arguments in the main session on CIRs. This will make for
> much more transparent, informed and possibly fruitful discussions rather
> than hearing on and on the assertion that CIR governance is a special case
> that needs to be shielded from public policy.
>

I have never been less than open in sharing my views.

At the risk of boring the list again, they include:

1) CIRs do not include names (with the exception of .arpa)

2) CIR policy is decided in an open, bottom up manner.  If anyone
wants to participate in these discussions and policy deliberations,
they can.

3) Creating a new forum to debate these issues without any possibility of
reaching binding conclusions seems like a wasteful duplication of effort to me.

In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet Community",
that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process that
they complain is "captured".  If CS feels strongly enough about this,
there is only one way to reverse this "capture", and that is to join
the Internet community fora.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance