Mars attacks - Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main

[McTim]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>
>  Le 14 févr. 08 à 18:12, McTim a écrit :
>
>  > But IF you really think so, then you must, logically, admit them as a
>  > 4th stakeholder group!  After all, if they aren't clearly animal,
>  > mineral or vegetable, they MUST be a new type of thing,
>
>  "the others", "the mutants", what exactly?!

If you'd like a list, it just so happens that I have a sample
available.  The RIPE community decided last year to begin a Enhanced
Cooperation Task Force. I thought it might be useful to look at the
number of gov't folk that participated in that community pre- vs. post
WSIS.  Seems that there wasn't any significant differences in the pre
and post samples, but it did leave me with a list of folk who are
non-profit, non-business and non-governmental, all of whom are keen to
promote public interest in Internet policy making.   The following are
groups (mainly of EU origins) whose reps attended one single meeting
(RIPE 55) in 2007 (NB: all duplicates removed, full list of attendees
of RIPE meetings available at ripe.net.):

.SE
ACONET
AFNIC
AfriNIC
AMS-IX
APNIC
ARIN
Autonomica AB
Caspur
CERN - European Organization for
CZ.NIC
DENIC eG
DFN Verein
DK Hostmaster A/S
DNS BE
DNS-Belgium
Euro-IX
HEAnet
ICANN
ICM, Warsaw University
Internet Systems Consortium
JANET-CERT
Japan Network Information Center
Japan Registry Services Co.,Ltd.
KTHNOC/Sunet
Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan
LACNIC
LINX
LITNET
LONAP Ltd
London Internet Exchange
MANDA
Merit Network
MIX - Milan Internet eXchange
NaMeX
NETNOD Internet Exchange
nic.at
NIKHEF
NIX.CZ
NLnet Labs
Nominet UK
Packet Clearing House
RENATER
RIPE NCC
Royal Institute of Technology
SIDN
Southwest Research Institute
SWITCH
Technical Chamber of Greece
TERENA
The Spamhaus Project
TOP-IX
UKERNA
UNINETT
UniVie / ACOnet / VIX

So it's not just ICANN/ISOC/IETF, etc that we are talking about.  The
above is a small snapshot, the global picture is, of course, much
larger.

>
>  > and be given
>  > equal representation.
>
>  Hey, wait a minute! Before giving them equal representation, we've to
>  check this new specy, see if it doesn't have aggressive intentions, etc.
>
>  Just kidding, but come on, Mc Tim, where do you expect to take the
>  caucus with such points?

Ideally, I'd like to take the caucus to the places (lists and
meetings) where I have participated in Internet administration.
However, since I have been tilting at that particular windmill for
quite a while with little success, for the purpose of this discussion,
I will settle for some reality based, logical thinking.

There are hundreds of Non-PS, non-gov't, non-profit groups around the
world who do Internet administration/coordination/communication and
policy making. Many of them built and help run the Internet.

IF we as a group recognize there are non-governmental, non-PS
organisations who participate in Internet
administration/coordination/communication and policy making AND we
deny that they are CS bodies, then we MUST allow that they constitute
a 4th SH grouping.

The realpolitik of the situation AFAIK is  that this 4th group has
already been enshrined in the pantheon of the MAG.  To say they
shouldn't exist as a 4th group, AND to say that they are not "pure
enough CS" to be considered as CS, but we will throw them a bone and
give them a quota of 6 seats is, at best, self- defeating.

Beyond the deadline for submitting IGC
>  comments?

I have already signified that I am ok with the majority of the statement.

I would rather the caucus make no statement than say something that is
illogical, self-denying and ultimately self-defeating.  Removing
references to the section that offends some would be the ideal
situation under the circumstance.  Otherwise, the coordinators can
call rough consensus on the statement and then we go through the
appeal process if there is an appeal.  My reading of the charter makes
me think that voting is only for leadership roles, but I may be
mistaken.

I must say that impugning ones motives does not impress.

In the archives, you can find posts where I have made my agenda,
motivations and reasons for participating on this list clear.  I have
always been upfront about this, and wish that others would be as
forthcoming.

AFAIK, we as a group have taken no stance against "neo-liberalism".  I
don't even know what it means, nor do I care.
I only care that whatever we help build is as good as what we have,
and that it helps bring more folk online while prtecting the
traditional values of the Internet (end2end, bottom-up, etc).  If that
is neo-liberal, I will proudly wear the label.

-- 
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