[governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI

[McTim]

Adam,

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> been trying not to say anything, but Suresh, McTim, your bullshit

Can you tell me what specifically you mean?  I have people not involved in
this thread mailing me in support of non-discrimination.

really is
> too much, you are nothing more than a couple of trolls.

"Ogre" if you please (makes me seem more Shrek-like).

NB: I have been on dozens of IG lists in the last 10 years, but this
is the first time I've ever been called a "troll".  A first for me!
w00t!

You contribute
> nothing of any value,

except of course, the truth as we experience it.

all of us would be better ignoring you, but you've
> written too much sanctimonious rubbish over the past couple of weeks to
> ignore...
>

>
> 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...

Is there a requirement for an open transparent process to submit names
for the MAG?  If so, perhaps you could describe that f the PS and
gov'ts?

>
> 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.

Adam, you see these people much more often than I do, why don't you ask them?

My take on it is this; if it was actual Internet Governance, I'm sure
they would, but since the IGF doesn't have any operational impact, I
see it as more of an outreach/capacity building thing for them.

>
> 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.
>

But the vast majority of policy and standards making lists are successful.


> 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.

and they didn't think that many others outside the technical community
have the same potential conflicts?

and they chose non-caucus members to represent the caucus?

My main gripe with this action was that it excludes a nebulous group
of people, some of whom might be caucus members, when we are all
supposed to have equal rights.


>  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.

If they wanted to be fair, they should have followed rule #5, if they
wanted to be accurate, they would have made a list of orgs whose staff
are to be excluded.

>
> 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?

I was quite curious about that, but thought that bringing it up would
be impolite ;-)

So they decided to exclude, inter alia, ISOC staff, but selected one anyway?
Why would they break their own rule?  maybe someone on the nomcom can
explain!

> 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.

This wasn't my experience when i was a newbie at all.  In fact, the org I used
to work for has a "newbie" program, as does the IETF!

  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.

not true, they get a bit hectic sometimes.

 Your
> fantasies about the wonderful technical community are just hypocritical
> crap.
>

or honest belief.

> Apologies to the list for the rant. It would be nice if we could move on.

It certainly would, but this is a major point of principle for me.
Would you be willing
to "move on" if you thought the spirit of the charter was violated?

As for MGs comment, I HAVE presented a resolution, a relatively benign one
adding a few words to the nomcom page and it has been seconded.
AFAIK, we need 10 folk in support of this, and I have asked the coordinator
to begin counting those who support exclusion and those who oppose it.

So far, he has ignored this request.

I have been asked off list in the last hour ;
 "maybe a change to allow votes on censure for
NomCom and other sub-groups
that overstep their madate might also be in order"

but that is out of scope for this discussion.

-- 
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