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

Fri Nov 15 03:35:14 EST 2013

Good day (it's a new day here) and peace be upon you all (I'm told today is
a holiday and from all the indications I've seen, i.e. text messages from
mobile operators, it seems it is Peace Day. But if I got it wrong, then
regardless...)

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:22 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Oh now, my memory is not even that good anymore!... At least as far as
calendar goes.
Then that was within a couple of months of me leaving Maputo where I was
stationed for 2.5 years. I cannot afford out-of-pocket expenses for
traveling to those meetings, and have been able to attend only the ones
that were held in the country I happened to be staying in at the time
(except for ICANN when I was on the GNSO council on behalf of NCUC,
sponsored by the latter for most travels and by ICANN for a couple... So
that was for the acknowledgement section.)

Talking about building bridges, at the Abidjan meeting I intend to seek a
more comprehensive conversation with Adiel (the AFRINIC Chief Exec) about
how we can work together and do better for breeding (or maybe more modestly
motivating or showing the way to) the next generation of social scientists
in Africa to do research using Internet technical data available in and on
the region. I'm not talking about one isolated researcher trying to get
data, which can most probably be done over the net, but about creating the
cultural and institutional pattern of associating the two communities with
the specific intent to produce research outputs publishable in academic
peer reviewed journals. This will entail various forms or levels of
collaboration, including co-authorship if relevant.

(Please don't tell me to join Afrinic policy list, because I'm already
there. Will discuss my feedback on that with them, too.)

Thanks Suresh for helping with the acronym and for your understanding.

Best,

Mawaki

>
> > 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131115/f78ad446/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