[governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation

Wed Sep 17 21:29:59 EDT 2008

Lee and all,

  I can clearly see many things that some people may be afraid
of regarding open debate/dialog.  What I do not understand is why,
unless a participant might be a US citizen or Chinese citizen, in which
case political too personal ramifications, although indirect may or
will be forthcoming with little to no opertunity to challange or
effectively
address.

Lee W McKnight wrote:

> Raul,
>
> It may be helpful to observe the facts that sparked this conversation.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> So the question perhaps should be more nuanced, why is debate a good
> thing in some fora but not in IGF?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Lee
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: raul at lacnic.net [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
> Sent: Thu 9/18/2008 3:45 PM
> To: Jeanette Hofmann
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation
>
> > Hi Raul,
> > I guess there are a few misunderstandings...
> >
> > Raul Echeberria wrote:
> >> Jeanette:
> >>
> >> i completely disagree with your assertion and I have to confess
> that I
> >> am very surprised to see you saying that.
> >> The Technical community doesn't exist in the sense that you try to
> >> describe. There are not a lot of closed and secret lists
> >
> > I didn't speak of closed or secret lists. I am subscribed to several
>
> > technical lists myself.
>
> It is implied in what you said. You say that technical community
> members
> among themselves speak in some way and in a different way when speak
> with
> other people. It implieas a vision according which technical community
>
> people only speak for technical community in their lists, and it is
> not
> true since all the forums are open and transparents.
>
> the controversies, debates, discussions and different view expressed,
> simply could not be hidden.
>
> ...........
>
> >
> >> It is also very unfair what you said regarding the "educational"
> >> attitude.
> >
> > Milton referred to the discussion we had about the structure and
> > direction of the main session on IPv4/IPv6 at the next IGF meeting.
> It
> > wasn't easy to come to an agreement. Different ideas about the focus
> and
> > the purpose of the session played a role here, as you know.
>
> It was not so difficult. It was the first Main session Workshop in
> being
> ready and perhaps we should think that the different ideas expressed
> are
> based in legitimate different views that anybody involved in that
> discussion  had. I think that there was good faith in frank and open
> discussion. Is it bad?
>
> >
> > You have had a lot of opporuntities to partcipate in deep
> >> frank and open discussions with many "technical community" people.
> >
> > Yes, this is true. And I wouldn't say that all engineers hide
> > controversies. Yet, without wanting to be unfair, it is still true
> that
> > I am puzzled by the differences of the ways issues are presented
> within
> > engineering communities and outside of it.
>
> Different forums have different characteristics and some things that
> are
> proposed in the IGF for example are not proposed in other given forums
> and
> viceversa.
> Speaking about the small part of the techical community world that
> corresponds to LACNIC, we spent a lot of energies and resources in
> engaging other stakeholders in the discussions with big success
> fortunately trying to be everytime more open and have more
> participation
> (using always a single speech, not changing it according our
> convenience).
> Many people in this list is witness of that.
> And without trying to speak on behalf of others, I know that this is
> not
> that only LACNIC does.
>
> So, it is very frustrating for me when I see the way in which you
> describe
> the behavior of the technical community because some people that read
> that
> and ignore how do we work and the efforts we make, can get a very
> wrong
> impression.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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