[governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update

Nick Ashton-Hart nashton at ccianet.org
Fri Mar 15 02:46:36 EDT 2013


inline responses

On 14 Mar 2013, at 11:42, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> Conceptually, of course, there is no justification for the technical and academic communities to be their own stakeholder group.  WGIG considered that question, and explicitly decided they should not be.  The WSIS output documents are a bit ambiguous, but I've put the case that they too describe only three separate stakeholder groups.

That is your opinion, but not one that many would recognise as a fact.

> Nevertheless, the technical community have carved out a separate stakeholder role for themselves just on the basis of their historical (and ongoing) role in the management of critical Internet resources and standards.  Whilst that is an important role, it is hard to see it providing a coherent conceptual basis to constitute them as a separate stakeholder group.

Again, your opinion. I amongst others strongly disagree.

> I've been called out for being too critical of the technical community lately, but actually I am a member of the technical community; former board member of ISOC-AU, Secretary of Australia's first (non-profit) national ISP, an open source software developer, have been a system administrator, and former manager of two IT consultancies.

Jeremy, I can also claim to be technical - I've had a technical career in IT that went from Sysadmin to hired gun CIO; I've designed IP networks including multi-country networks and programmed routers.

Neither of us is a member of the technical community. You work for consumer interests and I work in policy for a trade association. Members of the technical community work for technical bodies.
> 
> So I'm by no means an enemy of the technical community, I'm just calling the shots as I see them; and the treatment you have received, Michael, seems to me another example of the wrong approach being taken at a high level by the technical community's self-appointed representatives.

I leave it to the community concerned to deal with this issue and the questions arising from it, but I personally am unwilling to decide judgment based upon one email from an interested party in the issue - and simple fairness, I would have thought, should mean that nobody else should do that either.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130315/8756282a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


More information about the Governance mailing list