[governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI

[Parminder]

> 
> also just my opinion, but the Tunis Agenda makes that distinction.
> and in my view describes a matrix, with 3 stakeholder groups in one
> dimension and 2 named groups striped across those stakeholder groups
> as cross cutting influences in the other dimension.  

Yes, technical community as people with technical expertise and not
organizations that do Internet administration/ governance. 

I keep hoping someday one will make the distinction clear, and all/most
people will accept the distinction... we can not all agree on viewpoints,
but some general agreement on key terms that keep coming up in our
discussions is necessary. 

Ok, I will feed a little more into this debate there never seems to go
anywhere..

I am told that these IABs (provisional term, Internet admin bodies) are
really communities and not organizations in the traditional governance
organizations sense. That's problematic because every democracy claims that
it is the people who rule etc etc... but still we have the distinctions of
governance institutions, civil society bodies, communities, people etc. 

Ok, even if we were to accept the fiction that in IABs power is really
divided equally and the democratic utopia has been reached, the 'community'
must include everyone on whom the policies of IABs impinge... for instance
on me as an internet user. I am likely to be told, as indeed I am often by
McTim especially, that anyone can really participate on equal terms with
equal power (for instance, equal to those of ICANN's CEO) in these communal
policy making processes...

Ok, provisionally, even if we were to accept this proposition, and I did try
and participate in these policy making processes, do I then become a part of
the 'technical community'. But excuse me, can I just not be called that.
Because I cant see myself as 'technical' - due of course entirely to my own
shortcomings. I really have difficulty managing the most basic applications
on my laptop, and am quite poor in technical subjects as numerous postings
on this list keep reminding me. But do I have to accept the tag of
'technical community' to be part of this policy making structure.... I think
there is a serious problem there, and more than some degree of violence to
normal language and usage of terms, if someone does insist that I must
accept to be 'technical community' whether I know anything 
technical' or not, if I have to participate...

Ok, I will go even with this. And accept that I - as having a right to
participate in this bottom policy process - am a part of the technical
community. But then doesn't everyone have a right to so participate (because
Internet polices implicate everyone, users and non-users). Then everyone is
'technical community'. That's getting interesting. 

So, IABs are really communities, and everyone a member of these, and in this
very special communities power is really shared equally among all (which is
why no one can be singled out as centrally associated with and more powerful
than others in IABs, and thus likely to be especially accountable), then why
do IABs need any special representation in the MAG at all. Everyone on MAG
is technical community by default, since, if this is needed as a criterion,
by agreeing to be on the MAG he/she has indicated interest in IG issues... 

Or is it some special expertise and/or certain 'positions' in technical
community that we are talking about here.

If IABs can really let us know that they really want no representation by
any special reps or position holders of theirs on MAG, and after all they
are but a community of all people as equals, sure, CS would have little
difficulty in obliterating all differences in its mind and nominating anyone
to the MAG... But this is contrary to what we all know. IABs have been
extra-ordinarily anxious to get its reps on the MAG.

Sorry, for this long posting. But I really don't understand this whole thing
about technical community. What really is it? And believe me, I am not alone
in this bewilderment. 

Parminder 












> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 4:51 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI
> 
> 
> On 4 Jun 2008, at 11:35, McTim wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members
> >> within each
> >> stakeholder group.  All relevant stakeholder groups, representing
> >> Governments, private sector and civil society, including the
> >> academic and
> >> technical communities will submit names to the Internet Governance
> >> Forum
> >> Secretariat."
> >
> 
> > It seems to me, that part of the intent of the original communication
> > is to lump academia and technical
> > community folks in with CS.   I wonder if anyone can
> > speak as to the Secretariat's thoughts in this regard.
> 
> it is not the IGF Secretariat but the UN Secretary General.  and I
> don't think there is anyone outside his office who can speak to his
> thoughts on that.
> 
> just my opinion, of course.
> 
> also just my opinion, but the Tunis Agenda makes that distinction.
> and in my view describes a matrix, with 3 stakeholder groups in one
> dimension and 2 named groups striped across those stakeholder groups
> as cross cutting influences in the other dimension.  if one stops to
> think there are probably other cross-cutting groups that were not
> explicitly mentioned, but implicitly by this being the UN and everyone
> believing in the importance of diversity, like ; gender groups,
> regional groups, disability groups, religious groups  ...
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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