[governance] speakers for IGF

Mon Sep 10 01:39:37 EDT 2007

I had not seen the deadline for submitting names for panelists - and I now
see that it is the day after, on the 12th. I would say it is rather short...
but we need to do what we can for this.

So, I will suggest that everyone gives names for panelists to vittorio's and
my email id. NOT TO THE IGC ID, because if there is to be a selection
process, which we still have to discuss and finalize, it wont be right to
have all names in public first. 

Each suggested name should be specific to one of the five main thematic
panels plus one for the emerging issues panel. Please add two to four lines
justifying why these names are appropriate for the panels and also why they
should be FORWARDED BY OR THROUGH THE IGC as speakers....

(1) Some involvement with the IGC or other collective CS processes is
preferable, but not necessary if the suggested person and her perspectives
STRONGLY meet the condition 2 and/or 3 below. I put this criterion because
we are a platform of collective CS action, and panelists can also be
suggested directly to the IGF secretariat by any person. 

(2) While suggesting names, it is important to keep in mind various
positions and perspectives that have been adopted and/ or strongly discussed
in the IGC. In general, 'progressive' views normally associated with civil
society should also be a criterion. 

(3) Representing a 'CS view' or 'IGC view' is am important but not the only
objective of this process, and if some speakers can be expected to greatly
contribute in enriching the debate in the respective thematic area, that
should itself be a good justification. 

(4) Diversity of geography, gender, technical/ developmental/ social
background, special interest groups etc should be kept in mind. 

(5) As per some discussions on this list, it will also be useful to connect
workshops to main themes through suggesting panelists from among workshop
speakers.

(6) anyone recommended should already be planning to be in rio.

(these criterion will be further evolved if a selection process is adopted.
Vittorio is still to give his comments, but I thought I should start the
process because there isnt much time) 

I will request the secretariat to extend the deadline to 17th so we have a
week, but I cant be sure they will do it. Others who have some leverage with
the secretariat may also try to do so. 

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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:09 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lee McKnight'; dogwallah at gmail.com; 'Avri
> Doria'
> Subject: RE: [governance] tick, tick, tick...
> 
> > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing
> > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic
> > at IGF.
> >
> 
> Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a
> scheme for this within the next 24 hours.
> 
> 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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:39 AM
> > To: dogwallah at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> > Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick...
> >
> > Everyone,
> >
> > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing
> > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic
> > at IGF.
> >
> > Since, according to my 2-bit clock, IGF is now 2 months away.
> >
> > So great we have a decent agenda, and a good lineup of plenaries, but
> > still it's looking like an empty shell at the moment...and the clock is
> > ticking.
> >
> > Can our fearless and hopefully collegially speaking co-coordinators
> > suggest some next steps to move things forward? Parminder? Vittorio?
> >
> > Lee
> >
> >
> >
> > Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> > School of Information Studies
> > Syracuse University
> > +1-315-443-6891office
> > +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >
> > >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 9/9/2007 9:11 PM >>>
> > Hi Avri,
> >
> > On 9/8/07, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote:
> > >
> > > > MM
> > > >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the
> > > >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago.  I think
> > it
> > > > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those
> > > > two.)  Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists.
> > I
> > > > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really
> > wwant
> > > > to gain "expertise" in these fields.
> > >
> > >
> > > actually they have been bickering about it again.  check out the
> > > threads:
> > >
> > > IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all
> > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html
> >
> > Ummm... this was fwded from the ARIN list (I got it there first), it's
> > hardly "serious
> > policy debate".  If it was, there would be a draft RFC making the
> > rounds (which I haven't seen).
> >
> > As you can clearly see from this message, some in the RIR communities
> > aren't happy with the /32,/48,/64,/128 IETF recommendations and are
> > proposing changes to regional numbering policies to more closely match
> > their requirements.
> >
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > IPv6 RIR  Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after
> > all]
> > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html
> > >
> > > I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got a
> > > round to it,
> > > and the debate is still ongoing.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, and the debate is 99% in the RIR lists, after all they are the
> > ones who make the policies.  The IETF made architectural decisions.  I
> > don't see them changing this, especially since it is a general
> > discussion list, and NOT a WG list.
> >
> >
> > > but it is an interesting thread.
> > >
> > > a good and breif synopisis is:
> > > >
> > > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to
> > > > second-guess IETF design decisions.
> >
> > The above is a good summary of the situation.  However, it's not like
> > some second guessing isn't in order in re: IPv6.
> >
> > The situation, however is much more complex than the above, which is
> > what you might expect to see in an article in the media. I would
> > suggest that policy makers need deep familiarity with the issues,
> > which is why I have made sincere suggestions that more people on this
> > list join the current debates on actual techno-policy in fora where
> > they can actually make a difference.
> >
> > Milton.
> > I'm not feigning, I actually do know more about IPv6 issues than most
> > (but not all) on this list.  I know more because I have been reading
> > dozens of mailing list mails on the subject every day for many years,
> > while you seem to have been reading articles in newspapers/magazines
> > and blogs.  I am certain that if you want to actually help distribute
> > internet addresses, you have to participate in the forum that does
> > just that.  If you want to just talk about it, well, you are right,
> > the IGF is the place to be.
> >
> > I read your blog religiously, in fact it's on my Google homepage.  Of
> > the 3 you mention, one is a link to the ISP column, (also available on
> > ISOC website: http://isoc.org/educpillar/resources/), One is a link to
> > an ARIN statement, and the other is an editorial piece on arstechnica,
> > critical of the ARIN statement.  While this is "publishing", it
> > doesn't show that you understand the issues, it justs shows that you
> > can make a hyperlink ;-)
> >
> > Parminder
> > I think I actually asked for "right to development text" to be taken
> > out of a statement, not "off the list".
> >
> > Regarding your comment on giving feedback to the technical policy
> > folk, I suggest there is only one place to do this, and that is in the
> > germaine technical policy fora.  I am only "partisan" when it comes to
> > retaining bottomuppity-ness, I am pretty much agnostic aboout the rest
> > of your first reply.
> >
> > As to the second, I don't really know what "neo-liberal means (but it
> > sounds bad when you say it).  I have always been a "Minnesota
> > knee-jerk liberal", in the Humphrey/Mondale/Wellstone tradition of my
> > home state.  I don't think it's the same tho.
> >
> > I DO know that if I want to connect a rural school or health clinic in
> > a rural area here in Uganda, it's MUCH easier to first find a
> > corporate entity in the area that needs connectivity, let them pay for
> > the infrastructure, then hang the school/clinic off that.
> >
> > I don't know what you call the kind of person that does that, and I
> > don't much care.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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

____________________________________________________________
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