[Mmwg] IGF Input

[William Drake]

Hi McTim,

I'm still having a hard time following your argument.  Please help?

1.  What institutional barriers in the process have prevented more "clueful" people from participating?  Were there armed guards at the door preventing their entry?  Were they ever told no, go away, we (whoever that is) don't value your input?  As far as I can tell, the only limitation has been the self-imposed, i.e. attitudinal.

2.  Which issues have been poorly addressed due to the underrepresentation of clueful people?  Which specific outcomes to date would have been different if there had been more clueful people?

3.  Why would clueful people now need a special category in order to participate?  Are you saying ISOC, which has been very active and vocal, has not effectively represented their views thus far? Same goes for ICANN and related entities, as well as the ICC, etc?  

4.  Why should clueful people get to have a special participation category based on their professional training/activities and policy outlook while all other participants have to make do with the standard, overly lumpy categories based on socio-economic sectors?



5.  If "clueful" is a category reserved for computer scientists and engineers doing technical work, does it follow that all other participants in the process are clueless?



Appreciate your help,



Bill

  -----Original Message-----
  From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
  Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:37 AM
  To: William Drake
  Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
  Subject: Re: [Mmwg] IGF Input


  Hello all,

  been offline for a week on the Swahili Coast, but am catching up and would like to weigh in on this one.


  On 2/24/06, William Drake < drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
    Hi Luc,

    I don't see the problem with respect to the chair's question.  There are technical people in each of the three societal sectors conventionally recognized in the UN and beyond, 

  Are there really?  I saw very little evidence of this during the WSIS process. I think that there are not in actual fact very many at all.  I saw 1 clueful rep from Gov't side, a few in CS, and a few from PS.  

  I have been advocating all along that people who operate networks/set standards, etc., be more included if there is any chance of success of the IGF.


    and you don't have to create a new category catering to a particular interest group in order to ensure that some technical people get on a IGF boot-up team.  

  Me thinks we do.  How else will it happen? 



    There undoubtedly will be some, as there has been in the past.  Academics are in the non-profit sector, aka CS, and they too have been included from the start.  

  But very few academics with technical expertise.


  It's clearly too late for us to include this as a MMWG submission, so I will submit smt on my own. 


  -- 
  Cheers,

  McTim
  $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060227/0c13d0f0/attachment.html