[Mmwg] IGF Input

[McTim]

On 2/27/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi McTim,
>
> I'm still having a hard time following your argument.  Please help?
>


Ok, I'll use smaller words ;-)

1.  What institutional barriers in the process have prevented more "clueful"
> people from participating?
>


None, I didn't claim there were any, nor to my knowledge has anyone else
claimed this.

Were there armed guards at the door preventing their entry?
>

Oh yes, loads of em. Just getting accredited was a long and difficult
process.  Most folk who weigh in on technical mailing lists and go to
IETF/RIR meetings don't have to go through that process to "do" IG.  I
hadn't thought about it in those terms before, so yes, that was an actual
barrier to entry.


As far as I can tell, the only limitation has been the self-imposed, i.e.
> attitudinal.
>

Yes, I have made this point several times IIRC. Two camps not really
engaging in dialogue with each other with the exception of ISOC/NRO/ICANN
staff.

If the IGF makes this group of folk welcome by creating an explicit place at
the table for them, I am sure they will come to the table and contribute
much needed expertise.

2.  Which issues have been poorly addressed due to the underrepresentation
> of clueful people?
>

Well, Iin my field of expertise, (Internet Resource distribution) there was
a lot of rubbish written about IPv4 scarcity and IPv6 in general.  Terribly
wrong ideas were then passed around as gospel truth by many WSIS
participants.


Which specific outcomes to date would have been different if there had been
> more clueful people?
>

There would have been a lot less focus on Internet resources and more on
connecting the unconnected as a real outcome.


> 3.  Why would clueful people now need a special category in order to
> participate?
>

They don't "need" to participate, thay already do IG.  The IGF "needs" them
IMO.  So create a 4th category (I am opposed to all categories in the first
place, but gasve up that one long ago) to lure them in.  Let's take SPAM as
an exmaple of one issue that seems to be smt the IGF will take up quickly.
How can the IGF meaningfully discuss SPAM if they don't have the benefit of
the ppl who have been fighting it in the trenches?

So look at it from the reverse angle, we need spamcop et. al., more than
they need us.

Are you saying ISOC, which has been very active and vocal, has not
> effectively represented their views thus far?
>

I'm not aying this at all, but as many have pointed out, lots of governments
didn't take the ISOC message to heart.

Same goes for ICANN and related entities, as well as the ICC, etc?
>

Clearly ISOC/ICANN/ICC got their points across to key decision makers, but I
am talking about the rank and file of netops folk that would be useful at
the IGF, not just ICANN staff.


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?
>

Becasue they built and maintain the networks we are talking about? As such
they have insight/ capacity that your average NGO might not have.

BTW, there is a wide range of differences in policy positions amongst folk
in the technical community.  If there wasn't the mailing lists and meetings
would be pretty quiet!

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?
>

Everyone has "clue", just about different sorts of things.  My point is that
we need lots more of this specific type of clue at the IGF table.

Appreciate your help,
>

Anytime m8 ;-)

--
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/d80d04dd/attachment.html