[governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas?

[Lee McKnight]

Avri,

As a veteran techno policy player myself, pardon me if I remain
skeptical of the behind the scenes theater aspect of this discussion.

We're talking about what we are asked not to talk about at IGF, or that
which only certain people are able to speak to? 

Is it ICANN's role in critical Internet resource management which must
not be named?    

Or is it the man or woman behind the curtain at USG?  (I do agree there
is mainly FUD behind and in front of the curtain by the way.) Yes there
is a fair amount of ignorance, on the technical and policy sides, in
both directions  - partially the result of computer scientists mistaking
themselves for political scientists way back when.  And yeah ok, vice
versa : ) So I guess on that point we agree.

But the argument that someone has a veto over what is talked about, by
whom, on any subject at IGF, kind of violates the first principle of IGF
as a multistakeholder discussions forum, yes?

Certainly there is a need for broad(-er) education in the net's inner
workings, of more people than have been involved in the past, that's
clearly one of the key aspects of Internet governance and one of the
main purposes of workshops and discussions at IGF, yes?  And sure,
Kieren's call/invite for more people to jump into ICANN is welcome, and
is a way for people to have their voices heard on specific issues -
presuming they have the knowledge and time to engage at that level.

But we're still as noted by Wolfgang, Bertrand, and others in this 'new
architecture' definition and development phase for Internet governance,
and Internet governance institutions. And I don;t share jeremy's
conclusions that the UN is not a legitimate player here themselves. 

Still it's not enough to say 'come to ICANN and your voice will be
heard.'  We're talking at present about going to IGF and not having
pre-censored conversations.  If we do that then someone's ulterior
motive in neutering IGF - a discussion forum fobidden to have
conversations - will have been served.

Why not just talk about Bertrand's and Adam's preferred topic, of whom
should be recommended to speak on which topic? 

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> avri at psg.com 9/6/2007 4:09 AM >>>
Hi,

I think one of the things people fear, and something I myself
fear in all sorts of venues, is the effects of both innocently
inaccurate information and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

So in any endeavor there may be people who believe that a specific
topic does not belong on an agenda.  however, once it is put on the
the agenda, they want to make sure that those who understand the
topic are properly represented (btw, no endorsement of any proposed
speaker on my part is intended).  I don't think it is
necessary to presume a belief of conspiracy nor is it necessary
to be involved in one.

in the field of technopolicy this is even more prevalent since
it is impossible, i believe, to do technopolicy without understanding
both technology and policy.  and, again in my view, there as as many
of us dabbling in technopolicy who don't understand technology as
there are who don't understand policy.

a.



On 6 sep 2007, at 07.41, Parminder wrote:

> s 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 say this only as a point to ponder.... with no intention to decry 

> people
> and their points of view.
>
> Disclaimer: I do not know the people whose names have been
suggested,
> neither about their expertise and work. I am sure these persons,
since
> McTim, who has been around in this area for long, is suggesting  
> them, must
> be very capable people and should be speaking at the IGF.

____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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