[governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation

[Jeanette Hofmann]

McTim wrote:
> hi,
> 
> My sense of this is different, as you can probably guess.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>> Hi Milton, you address something on the blog that I have also found
>> puzzling. The technical community engages in fierce debates on their mailing
>> lists and in face2face meetings. However, as soon as they interact with
>> others they take an educational stance and try to hide the highly
>> controversial dimension of the issues at stake. IPv4/IPv6 is a good example.
>> Why is that?
> 
> It seems to me that if you want to have debates that actually shape
> policy on these issues then one should have them in the appropriate
> forum.  If you want to have discussions in a non-binding forum, such
> as the IGF that is not supposed to make policy, then the point of
> those debates seems to me to be: "background information,"
> "educational material" and "best practice" dissemination.  Which is
> exactly what MM says in his blog that "technical communitarians" want.

Hi McTim, to state the obvious question, what does multi-stakeholder 
forum mean under conditions where we exchange is restricted to educating 
each other and the important stuff like policy decisions remains in the 
"appropriate forum".

My understanding of stakeholders taking each other seriously would 
include that we tell each other about open questions and controversial 
views in a way that we enable other groups to understand the issue and 
express preferences and concerns.

jeanette
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
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