[governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Adam, you can participate in just about every of those technical community
groups - all the way from the IAB and IETF down to APNIC meetings (where I
have seen you around, so..)

In any process at all - and that's not at all limited to technical
communities - you need to have a sufficient amount of familiarity and
expertise with what is being discussed, if your ideas are to be given any
kind of credibility.

Add that to a community that in some cases doesn't suffer fools gladly and
is vocal about it, and you wouldn't be blamed too much for confusing it with
a closed process.

The nomcom has, unfortunately, elected to blanket ban all employees of
particular organizations.  What you are suggesting be followed is a case by
case, per person evaluation. I have no issues with that, especially as
candidates are supposed to declare conflicts of interest when putting their
names forward for election.

I will repeat that quite a few technical community groups have given a lot
more to the civsoc movement than you'd expect, and in key, critical areas of
ICT4D rather than mere wrangling about ICANN and RIR politics and wars on
control / oversight of these organizations, a concept which has dominated
the minds of this caucus for quite some time this year .. and the year
before, and the year before that [ad infinitum]. 

The converse, unfortunately, is just not true.  Traditional civsoc hasn't
contributed much beyond chaos and wrangling at the low end of the spectrum,
and policy and theory at the higher end. Implementation - that vital thing -
gets left to the technical community, or at least to those civsoc groups
(such as NSRC, say) that identify with and are fully part of the technical
community.

	srs


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:32 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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