[governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation

[Parminder]

> 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?
> jeanette

I will try to give a simplistic reply, which may be excused for
over-simplification, if one so feels about it. 

The technical community has some kind of distrust about spaces outside their
own ones, which, especially the policy oriented ones, are seen by them as
threatening to bring in statist control over the internet, which they (as
per their opinion) manage quite well. They do not think they need any, or
any further, political inputs, legitimacy and/or supervision.

Their fears are not entirely unjustified, but they must understand that
Internet is increasingly so central to many social processes and activities
that its governance must address issues of legitimacy and participation of
all involved and implicated. And this simply mean that they have to open up
discussions of key IG issues to non-technical stakeholders and spaces, while
defending their strong and justified position against misuse of political
processes for a greater, illegitimate, statist control.  

In this regard it is not enough to say, well, the spaces we discuss these
issues in are open to all. Every space has its unique structural exclusions
and inclusions, which cant be ignored under a pretence of nominal openness. 


Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 8:18 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: Re: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation
> 
> 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?
> jeanette
> 
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> > For those of you who haven''t seen it, here is my take on the IGF
> > consultation
> > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/9/17/3889384.html
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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