[governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On 26 May 2008, at 12:08, Guru wrote:

> Avri,
>
> There is a serious problem when the same term is used to mean two  
> different things. It leads to a lot of confusion, when in an  
> argument one person is using one meaning and the other person, the  
> second meaning.

Well, overloading terminology can always be problematic, but it is not  
us who defines these names,  Internet Technical Community (ITC?) has  
been defined implicitly by others (though the TA only uses technical  
community, not Internet Technical Community).  Any of our explicit  
attempts at a definition are just our interpretations for the implicit  
meaning derived from common usage.

Also i do not think these definitions are any more problematic then  
the overloading of definitions for CS.  In this case, the individuals  
and their relationship to the organizations becomes rather clear.   
though of curse i do not think we can create an epxlicit list of ITC  
organization without lots of argument.

I would suggest we refer to Internet Technical Community organizations  
and ITC individuals if we really want to distinguish and regularize  
usage.

>
>
> Can we try and use two different terms for these two categories.
>
> We could consistently use
>
> A. IAB (Internet Administration Bodies)

However, IAB is already the name of another organization the Internet  
Architecture Board (http://www.iab.org/).  This might be a bit awkward  
in the overloading sense.


> for those "those _organizations_ that focus on work, often  in a  
> partially coordinated manner, intended to insure the technical  
> integrity and technical development of the Internet." I would add -  
> 'and participate in the administration / governance of the  
> internet'. The IGC submission in the feb consultations clearly  
> covered this group when it stated that the participation of IABs in  
> MAG should not be at the cost of CS participation'

As long as you use the working definition of Governance from the TA 34  
and use a technical interpretation of what:  shared principles, norms,  
rules, decision- making procedures, and programmes means, i do not see  
a problem in that.

>
>
> B. and use 'technical  experts' (i am sure better names are  
> possible) for individuals - these experts can belong to Govt or  
> Business or CS groups (as also suggested by Raul).

Well, that remove the notions of these people being a community.  Also  
then we could get in squabbling as to who was really an expert.

>
>
> Guru
> ps- Still waiting from responses on this question from Suresh and  
> McTim..

yes, I understand their definitions are the ones  asked for and i am  
just kibbitzing.

cheers

a.

>
>
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26 May 2008, at 11:27, Raul Echeberria wrote:
>>
>>> There are still many people that prefer to keep the classification  
>>> in 3 stakeholders group.
>>
>>
>> and it is those people who make the rules.  we don't get to decide  
>> how many stakeholder groups there are in things that derive from  
>> the WSIS decisions.  we can argue for change, but we alone do not  
>> make the rules.
>>
>> the WSIS Tunis Agenda defined 3 groups plus 2 cross-cutting  
>> groups.  so within this environment we seem to be stuck with 3  
>> stakeholder groups and 2 cross-cutting groups.
>>
>> btw, in another thread someone asked for a definition of the  
>> Internet technical Community.  in addition to what i have written  
>> abut it before i define it as:
>>
>> those _organizations_ that focus on work, often  in a partially  
>> coordinated manner, intended to insure the technical integrity and  
>> technical development of the Internet.
>>
>> the term can also be applied to those individuals, whether they  
>> come from government, business or civil society who devote their  
>> lives to the cause of Internet technical integrity and technical  
>> development and who work with or for these organizations.  yes, i  
>> see this as somewhat problematic and at the time of WSIS argued for  
>> a 4th house - the Internet Technical Community.  but as history  
>> shows, this was rejected and thus we, pragmatically, need to live  
>> with what we've got until  the ground rules change.
>>
>> and I agree with Raul when he says:
>>
>>> In that case we have o let anybody to decide to which group they  
>>> feel closer.
>>> Maybe some people in the so called "technical community" feel  
>>> closer from the business sector, and others, like me feels part of  
>>> civil society organizations space.
>>
>>
>> a.
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> -- 
> ____________
> Gurumurthy K
> IT for Change,Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities

____________________________________________________________
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