[governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI

[Adam Peake]

been trying not to say anything, but Suresh, McTim, your bullshit 
really is too much, you are nothing more than a couple of trolls. You 
contribute nothing of any value, all of us would be better ignoring 
you, but you've written too much sanctimonious rubbish over the past 
couple of weeks to ignore...


>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.
>


And this would be the same Internet technical community that 
according to George's explanation (I believe you wagged your tail in 
agreement) is perfectly capable of explaining why it should be 
considered a fourth stakeholder, but not coherent enough to organize 
an open process where some of that community submits names for MAG 
membership. That makes sense, huh...

For the past four plus years ISOC, ICANN and a few others have ably 
represented the Internet technical community's interests in numerous 
statements, throughout WSIS, in IGF meetings, in the MAG recommending 
speakers and themes (we've even heard comments from IETF that they 
are OK with ISOC to take this representative role). Yet a bit of an 
open process to recommend a batch of names for MAG rotation (having 
committed to transparency, said what a great thing it is) turns out 
to be too much trouble.  Sad.

George, you're explanation of the Internet technical community as 
just "a lot of individuals" really doesn't hack it, it doesn't 
reflect the reality we've seen in WSIS/WGIG/IGF for the past few 
years.  But at least you're no troll :-)

Keeping lists open and discussing contentious issues isn't easy, this 
list has managed it for about 5 reasonably productive years 
(unfortunately steadily becoming less productive.)  Remember the 
Internet technical community's attempt to discuss many of these 
issues, the Internet Societal Task Force...  not a success.

One last go at conflict of interest and a note from a few days (or 
perhaps weeks) ago...  The nomcom's point was not that an RIR or a 
person employed by an RIR could not be civil society.  It was that a 
person employed by such an organization may have a conflict of 
interest when it came to being able to represent the interests of the 
caucus above those of their employer.  This is consistent with other 
criteria in the nomcom's report and  consistent with discussion on 
the list before the nomcom began its work. I didn't agree with the 
majority, but at least can recognize the nomcom was being fair and 
accurate.

Earlier the nomcom selected a person employed by ISOC, that person 
later withdrew, but nonetheless the nomcom had selected him.  Isn't 
that indication enough the nomcom saw the possibility that someone 
could be part of the Internet technical community and also be CS?

McTim, Suresh, if you want to be angry at anyone be angry at those 
who claim to be a stakeholder but don't allow you to participate 
unless you're an insider -- sod bottom-up processes and tens of 
thousands of members, keep it small and neat.  Of course with a 
closed process there's no chance of the shit-storm of email we've 
seen on this list for the past 2 weeks. Your fantasies about the 
wonderful technical community are just hypocritical crap.

Apologies to the list for the rant. It would be nice if we could move 
on. Comments on workshops and the new Hyderabad programme paper, IGF 
agenda, on coordinator elections?

And not replying to trolls in future probably a good idea.

Thanks,

Adam
____________________________________________________________
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