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

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi,


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:44 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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!
>

Sounds to me like you and I discussed this once... like we both were at the
Maputo meeting back in 2004? or 03? but didn't meet. Rings a bell?
I will probably attend upcoming Abidjan, will you?

And instead of us guessing, what do you mean by T&A?

>
>  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.
>

Yes, but examples don't exhaust the question, which is: is there any
distinctiveness between those two modus operandi and modes of practice,
even if there are instances of overlap in goals? I think yes. However...

>
> 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.
>

I would agree with this approach, instead, provided that it recognizes the
diversity of the voices (including groupings or sub-groupings) joining in,
in order to foster better environment for collaboration.
Now, frankly, I don't know how CS was approached about that idea at
start--assuming the explicit intent was what you describe above. For some
reasons I cannot tell (I wasn't in Bali), the approach didn't seem to have
elicited a whole lot of trust (e.g., trust that the non-tech CS specific
message will be given the proper attention or the weight it deserves.) And
unless someone can prove me wrong, I just can't believe that that was due
to the bad faith of the CS participants involved.

Whatever way we choose to proceed, I think the spirit of cooperation must
remain. Diversity of voices (hopefully an orderly one) doesn't necessarily
have to be characterized as us vs them --and does not actually have to be
that. That's all I can say... and hope for.

m.

>
>
> --
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131115/86598b97/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