[governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation

[raul at lacnic.net]

Lee

> Raul,
>
> It may be helpful to observe the facts that sparked this conversation.

What you mention as "facts" are not necessarily facts.
I prefer to speak about my opinions.

>
> Namely, from the record of written statements and interventions in this
> open discussion, as well as Milton's subjective veew as reported in his
> blog, it appears/looks like ITAA & ISOC & ICC & USG  (& ETNO?) coordinated
> to try to stifle 'debate' at IGF III.
>


ITAA, ICC, USG, ...... Interesting definition of "Technical community".


> At IGF, not in their own fora.
>
> Or should I say excuse me, because I should have said they tried to
> promote 'dialogue' and education instead of debate?
>

You can say what you find more appropriate. My view is that the "Technical
community" has been engaged and committed in this process since the
beggining. We have helped in a great manner not only to fund the process
but also to provide contents to this process. Some of us worked very much
in deep discussion since the WGIG process.


> This is not a knock on IETF or LACNIC or anyone else including USG,

?????

>it is
> just an observation of what looks like a coordinated effort to limit
> 'debate' at IGF. In which technical community representatives were one but
> not the only players trying this tactic.

I think that you start from false premises and so your conclusions are
also false. (my opinion).

I am not aware of that tactic and the only fact of including LACNIC and
the USG as part of a common group, honestely, make me smile.


>
> So the question perhaps should be more nuanced, why is debate a good thing
> in some fora but not in IGF?

I can not answer this question. Can you?
I think that the IGF is a good place for debates and this is only reason
because I have spent so much time on this.

>
> Frankly it is frustrating to me that folks representing a few of the
> various stakeholder 'technical' communities at the global level still try
> to pull this silliness in 2008.

Again, IMHO, it is not a valid premise.


>
> For example, I believe many would agree that perhaps the best shot at
> sorting through the complexities and inter-dependencies to really make the
> IPv4  to v6 transition happen, if it ever will, is multistakeholder debate
> and discussion - including at IGF. Since if IPv4 to v6 was just a
> technical issue for the technical community to handle itself we might
> guess it would have been done long ago.
>
> So in my opinion the odds are the very best shot at sorting out the
> holdups is a very lively debate or 2 or 3, at IGF.  A technical lecture
> educating the policy masses on how the bits line up would be a waste of
> time and space at a policy/governance form. As an example of why 'debate'
> at IGF is a good thing, and not something to be feared. Remember IGF can't
> make anyone do anything, so I really don;t see what people are afraid of.
>


I am not afraid, who is afraid?
I really hope to have good workshops for discussing these issues at IGF.
Regarding IPv4-IPv6 nobody has made an effort like the RIRs to bring this
issue to the table for discussion among all the stakeholders, from all the
perspectives and including all the aspects of the discussion.

It was the NRO who claimed for the attention of the governments to this
issue, it was the NRO who asked the GAC many times to include this point
in their agenda.
The RIRs have organized and supporte hundreds of activities around the
globe in partnership with governments, local communities, international
organizations and also with the participation of civil society for
promoting the discussion about this issue and also to bring more people to
the policy discusion (but not only that).

I really have problems to accept your facts and assertions. Our
perceptions of the reality are so far one from each other, that it makes
me feel that we are speaking about paralel dimensions.


Raùl



____________________________________________________________
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