[governance] speakers for IGF
karen banks
karenb at gn.apc.org
Mon Sep 10 03:28:37 EDT 2007
hi
I guess there'll also be some names coming in from dynamic
coalitions? (thinking in particular ofr the privacy and A2K
coalitions..) - how's communication between the IGC and the other
dynamic coalitions? of course, the more sources of input the better,
but also nice to coordinate
i'll certainly suggest the privacy coalition put a few names
together.. and i assume robin gross will be on the out and out for
ideas from her networks..
have to say i missed this call altogether.. is it in the minutes of
the MAG meeting? would be good if it was a little clearer on the website..
karen
>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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list