[governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas?

[Parminder]

>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.

This is true. But since policy in such an important area as the Internet
remains important, what do you think we should do? The balance, as you say
is needed, and therefore which way we move will depend on where we stand. Is
it not true that CIR related polices is now disproportionately in hands of
those who may understand technology better than they do policy (leaving the
'capture' element spoken of by Guru out since this element involves actors
who understand the power of policy very well, and misuse it thoroughly). So
we need more policy expertise to bear upon this area, and thus the needed
discussion at IGF, which was created a public policy discussion forum...
that's a good reason for getting CIR governance discussion to the IGF.

Secondly, the issue of getting an item on agenda at the IGF is not only a
matter of calling upon expertise on the involved issues - technical or
policy related - but as much of legitimacy of the manner in which these
issues are discussed and handled by bringing in the engagement of a wider
stakeholder group... I think we need the balance between expertise aspect
and representation/ legitimacy aspect of governance. This is the second good
reason for discussing CIRs at the IGF...

And we must also remember the connection between reason one above (balance
of expertise) and reason two (political legitimacy).... this is abput how
political ideologies get easily wrapped in 'expertise' dispensation... You
may have heard of 'Californian ideology' - a term that tries to capture the
dominant ideology among techies and technocrats. A real world exposure to
other world ideologies at the IGF can only help us get a more balanced view
of things - the issue of CIR governance in this case.

Parminder 


________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:40 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas?
> 
> 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