[governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI

[McTim]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>>

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

ummm, well I have known the the term "technical community" AS the
organizations that do Internet administration/ governance AND all
those who partake in the technical or administrative coordination of
internetworks.  This term has been in use in this way for over a
decade.  I think you are over-reaching if you think you can redefine
this term, but good luck with it if you insist on trying.


>
> 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.

How's this for clarity; There is NO distinction.  The term is used for
people and organisations where those people interact.

We can't even define ourselves, I think that if you want to define a
group that you deny is "us", then first, ask yourself, would you
accept "them" defining "us'??

>
> 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,

A) it's not a fiction, I lived it today (remotely).

B) no one said it was a utopia, it's just MUCH better
than anything WSIS or the IGF has done in terms of
openness/tranparency/remote participation, etc, etc.


 the 'community'
> must include everyone on whom the policies of IABs impinge... for instance

nope, you've assumed that the community of Internet Users is the same
as the Internet technical community.  There are those users who are
interested and engaged in technical/administrative matters and those
who are not.  It is NOT the same set of people.  Now, POTENTIALLY,
they are the same set (all users can have a seat at the table), but
realistically, if I can't get this Caucus more involved after several
years of trying, well I have my doubts that "grandmas with ADSL
modems" will likely be interested, YMMV.

> 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...

I see the herrings getting redder and redder, but since I like "Dutch
sushi", I'll bite.

Since I have NEVER seen an ICANN CEO participate in the communal
policy making processes that I participated in today  (numbering
policy discussions), I'd say they don't exercise "power" in the bottom
up discussions. So in that sense, the folk at the botttom have more
say than he/she does in this regard.

>
> 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'.

"technically" yes. :-)

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.

You don't have to accept any tag that you don't want, and many
non-technical folk participate, as we are talking about ADMINISTRATION
of technical resources.

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...

You don't have to know anything in particular (but it would be helpful
to know a few terms, which I have already seen you use on this list),
and no one is going to force you to accept a label, not to worry.

>
> 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).

No one has ever been excluded from the discussions that I participate
in (except for a few trolls that violate AUPs, like the one we have on
this list).

 Then everyone is
> 'technical community'.

if they participate, and want the tag then yes, if they don't then no.
Not everyome does, of course, so the above assertion is incorrect.


>That's getting interesting.
>
> So, IABs are really communities,

IABs are organisations, these organisations support (and take their
marching orders from their communities).  It's not rocket science, I
can't see how this is difficult to grasp after so many explanations.

Try looking at these 2 pages in light of the above, I think it will be
clear what i am getting at.

Community:
http://ripe.net/ripe/index.html

Organisation:
http://ripe.net/index.html


> and everyone a member of these,

no, everyone CAN be, but like you, they are not for a
variety of reasons.

 and in this
> very special communities power is really shared equally among all

yes

(which is
> why no one can be singled out as centrally associated with and more powerful
> than others in IABs

how does this follow from the above?  AFAIK, No one has argued that
"no one can be singled out as centrally associated with and more
powerful than others in IABs"  the IAB, as you call them ARE
organisations, non-profit, Civil Society organisations that take their
orders from their members (about how the org is run) AND their
communities (who set the policies, if they are policy making
communities).

, 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,

Now I'm really lost, this is perhaps (intentionally?) the most
confusing mail I've ever read from you.  What criterion does the
article "this" refer to in the above sentence?

> by agreeing to be on the MAG he/she has indicated interest in IG issues...

the above phrase is the first thing that has made sense.
> 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.

yes, we know they were treated shabbily by CS in the run up to WSIS
and they went off on their own.  Now, some in CS are in the position
of saying "no 4th SH group, AND no, those people aren't CS either"

 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.
>

Perhaps you would be better off listening to (and counting, which IIUC
is part of the task you volunteered for) the people who have come out
against exclusion of certain parts of CS (including those on this
list), in violation of our charter.  It really is a terribly Un-CS
thing to do, and I hear more voices AGAINST such exclusion than I hear
FOR it.

-- 
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