[governance] Respectful Human Interface
Eric Dierker
cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net
Sun Jun 13 12:31:50 EDT 2010
Jeanette,
I mean no consternation causing. Consider this possibility. There are about 5 billion readers to this list. There are about 10 posters on matters of general governance. While we stay personal in touch and reference to keep it human, we have a sort of duty, a duty to explore and to examine concepts. So if I take something you say and extrapolate (yes it is personal to you) I hope to do it in a way where others may begin to evaluate a given position. When I jump all over Milton - it is not about Milton -- he makes very strong points that unless questioned go unbolstered and unexplained.I do not see or take my doctoral education my years of education, travel and information technology and my freedom lightly. I take it as a burden as should you. We who have the tools and the luxury of time to work on these matters without compensation, should be ever grateful, and should not shirk our responsibility to carry some criticism so that others may benefit.The
ultimate required respect is to those who cannot speak, to speak our best for them. Not to whither and dither and worry if we are right or respected.
"I am more often wrong than right, so all I can do to do right, is to keep doing"
Eric
--- On Sun, 6/13/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
Subject: Re: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental (UN-ICANN)
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 7:41 AM
Hi,
Eric Dierker wrote:
> At first blush Milton's argument may seem like an "if you build it they will come" form of logic. On full reading it is clearly not. Milton makes a clear case that indeed, as we write, there is no more fitting center for IG.
The fact that there is no more fitting center doesn't necessarily make the IGC a fitting body for selecting members for the MAG.
I go further and leave out the caveat "for civil
> society", as in my belief that is apriori.* Jeanette had me going until off list she offered no more sound rationale than that espoused here. Rather bluntly, Milton's last paragraph covers the reason - protectionism.
Could you perhaps just accept that I don't share your opinion and stop speculating about my motives?
jeanette
> There was debate about putting the ICANN ballywick under the auspices of the UN. As an authoritarian type mandate it was nixed. Certainly the success of ICANN independent was not reason for the denial of concept. The rationale most agreed to was UN failure. But no one ever suggested that UN input was a bad idea and/or not beneficial. However the UN had no mechanism with credibility with which to accomplish positive guidance and influencial input. Milton's position seems to suggest that it now does and maybe should be revisited. So I suggest we not only look to the IGC for input into the UN, but at a good opportunity for UN input into the IG.
> *No one ever suggests _un_civil society help with IG ;-) ergo rogare mia sum
>
> --- On *Fri, 6/11/10, Milton L Mueller /<mueller at syr.edu>/* wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu
> <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jeanette@wzb.eu>]
> > Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is
> not the
> > global representative of civil society in the field of Internet
> > governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really
> > good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose
> different
> > avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to suggest new
> > ways of selecting members, we need to take into consideration
> that the
> > IGC is not and will not be the center of the civil society world.
>
> I don't agree. IGC is the closest thing there is to a global nexus
> for civil society discussion of IG. If the Secretariat or UN were to
> ratify it as the basis for selection, then many others would join
> it. Whatever the flaws and limitations of IGC, it is much more
> transparent and open a space for CS than people sidling up to their
> governments or businesses behind the scenes and asking them to be
> appointed to "represent" CS.
>
> The truth of my assertion can stand up to a very simple test: name
> ONE other organization or process that is superior to IGC in any
> important respect: embedded knowledge of IGF and its processes; more
> active participation by CS people involved in IG; linkages to WSIS
> and its resolutions and processes. Name one.
>
> A nominating committee? Don't make me laugh. Appointed by whom?
> Using what process?
> Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to perpetuate
> themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process.
>
> --MM
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100613/865e5f70/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list