[governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas?

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

huh?  I think I am confused by your message.  Certainly my note had  
nothing to do with
people not being allowed to speak.  Though certainly for myself i  
hope i can avoid speaking
when i don't know what i am talking about.  but that is beside the  
point.

My note had to do with why, after not wanting a subject on the table,  
people might want
to speak to the topic when it was put on the table.  It did not  
really try to address why
they would not want it on the table.  But rather that once the  
subject was on the table
they would want to speak to make their view of the technical reality  
and the constraints
imposed by technical reality were adequately and accurately covered.   
Just as one of the
political scientists would want to make sure their theories were  
accurately represented.

In terms of ICANN, it is understandable that people want to discuss  
it.  It is also
understandable that it should not be the only thing people talk  
about.  I personally
don't think there should be a topic veto, and I don't really hear  
anyone else suggesting
a veto.  I hear people talking about someone else imposing a veto,  
but i don't hear anyone
actually imposing a veto.  at least not about ICANN i am sure there  
are kinds of conversations
we could arrested for, but they are not ICANN or IGF  conversations.

And I actually thought i was talking about Adam's favorite subject in  
a meta sort of way.
I.e. i was trying to explain why i thought people who were against a  
topic being discussed might
want to be one of the disputants if it was discussed.  As for  
Bertrand's subjects, always
happy to discuss those at great length.

a.



On 6 sep 2007, at 18.13, Lee McKnight wrote:

> 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