[governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Thu Jun 5 17:25:21 EDT 2008
While agreeing overall with the list compiled by George and sharing some
reservations about the overall narrowness of this group relative to what
would be required for being truly reflective of CS in the context of
Internet Governance I must intervene to note that the message below is
simply trollish twaddle...
Issues of the use of the Internet in support of development (ie. ICT4D)
START with the issues presented in George's note and dare I say represent
only the most basic starting point for ICT4D.
The real challenge of ICT4D is not getting the bits and bytes issues solved
(necessary but most certainly not sufficient) rather it has to do with
putting into place appropriate
social/organizational/learning/management/content/service etc.etc.
infrastructures which can support the effective use of ICTs in the range of
areas where an ICT infrastructure can make a developmental contribution.
It is the mostly unsung community practitioners (CS more or less to a
man/woman--whether or not they have found the means to formally participate
in august bodies such as this one) who actually do the work of ICT4D very
often (unfortunately) despite the condescending and uncomprehending
behaviours of the techies whose concern is most often "quality" of technical
performance rather than utility of system operation.
I've spent way way too much of my professional life fighting with smug and
dangerously narrow techies who had no idea that there were actually users
out there who were often desperately trying to make systems work for them,
where they were, for their purposes, in the face of incomprehensible
technical gobbledy gook, the sweatless arrogance of folks sitting in front
of consoles in air conditioned rooms, and generally systems engineers who
thought that simply laying the wires (or whatever) so that they functioned
according to spec was sufficient to achieve useful developmental outcomes.
I completely agree with Adam that you are a troll here as you seem to have
little or no interest in the reality/utility of what you are discussing and
simply are making your points (repeatedly) apparently as a means to disrupt
discussion by others who, whatever their other faults at least have a
measure of honesty about their motivations for participation in this forum.
If you have a resolution, please present it for discussion and presumably
some form of decision, if not I move that we move on and that there be no
further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration
that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions concerning
the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group.
MG
-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
Sent: June 5, 2008 5:17 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Adam Peake'
Subject: RE: [governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI
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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list