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

[McTim]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Maputo, 2005. Champions League Final week.


> I will probably attend upcoming Abidjan, will you?

No, alas I will not.  I am no longer in Africa in any case.

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


That Stakeholder group given to us by WSIS, the I*'s, Af*'s, etc, etc.

>>
>>
>>  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.)

Is there a message?

 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.

This process will require lots of good faith effort from everyone.  It
is going from zero to some kind of meeting in 6 months with no
prepcom/processes in place.  I'm not saying CS is showing bad faith,
but certainly I see lots of suspicion, even paranoia (BB talking about
closing off a list to talk strategy, so the "others" won't know our
cunning plans).

>
> 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.

One can only hope!

-- 
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