[governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit

[McTim]

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial
>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is
>> counterproductive in the long run.
>
>
> I have no intention of opposing your opposition, but is there any
> categorization scheme that is not artificial?


Good point, the MSism of Geneva is not the same multi-stakholderism of
the T&A (tho there are silos inside ICANN, which is regrettable and
hopefully fixable).  I'm not sure we can fix the silos in Geneva.  In
the IETF and the RIR system for example, everyone shows up (on lists
or in person) as themselves, not as part of an artificial grouping.
It is more of an egalitarian meritocracy, where everyone has time at
the microphone (or on unmoderated lists) to pitch defend or critique
ideas/policies/standards.


 My understanding so far of
> what the technical community is about is that they are mostly concerned with
> designing protocols, setting standards and handling the day to day operation
> of the networks, and sometimes coordinating all those moving parts.

There is protocol and standards making and other policy processes, but
the T&A folk are largely administrative. There is of course research
and some networks being run, but the vast majority of Internetworks
are run by PS and some gov folks.  Coordination, collaboration and
communication are a big part of what the T&A do, but they are largely
administrative.  You should go to an AFRINIC meeting, it would be
highly instructive!

 I
> thought TC takes pride in being rather neutral (or a-political, if you
> will), just trying to make things work in the most efficient manner. Do you
> see the same bunch of people spend time and other resources going around to
> push for agendas for which the technology may already be there but just the
> political will is lacking?

yes, see DNSSEC and IPv6.

 Like, for instance, using some available
> technologies and other resources to make access more affordable.


Yes, see FIRE/FRIDA/ISIF Asia awards.



 You see no
> difference between the role that a group such as Access or APC would play in
> that regard and that of, say, an RIR?

There is plenty of overlap in capacity building and other areas.


 I'm just curious since you seem so
> vehement about any line of distinction. That said, it's also clear that some
> of the i* orgs can play in both repertoires or combine both dimensions.
>
> Besides... beware what you wish for because we could end up with just two
> stakeholder groups: government vs non-government/CS (the latter for all of
> us.)


As you pointed out, these groupings are artificial and thrust upon us at WSIS.

The 1net initiative is not supposed to be T&A led, it is supposed to
be an umbrella for all to join.  I am against further dividing the
world into us vs them in terms of planning for Brazil mtg.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- 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