VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input

[Avri Doria]

hi

i think that perhaps part of the problem with T&A, is the T and A  
perhaps do not belong in the same category except for the fact that  
they were both excluded from earlier categorizations.

I think the idea of Academics forming networks and finding a  
respected role as neutral advisors is good and worthy goal.   and  
besides Academics have found a welcoming home in CS.

but when we talk about the ITC (Internet Technical (and operational)  
Community, we are talking about the stakeholders who currently  
control the de-facto mechanisms of governance.  to argue that they  
don't deserve an role on equal footing can be interpreted as somewhat  
alienating.  and it is a sad fact that the ITC folks have not found  
such a great home in CS.  the fit isn't as good.

i think that if this group has nothing it can agree to say on that  
particular issue it should be left out.

a.




On 27 feb 2006, at 17.04, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

> Bill:
> W's proposal for a special Advisory Committee of T&A is totally out  
> of the blue and has never been discussed.
>
> Wolfgang:
> This is not rrue. I advertised this idea already in Tunis and  
> repeated in frequently in several mails. The idea was to get rid of  
> the debate on a 4th stakeholder group. And indeed,, if I remember  
> the discussion from the Chateau, it was the argument, that the  
> nature of this group is different that the nature of stakeholders  
> (neutral advisers, consultants vs. advocacy groups).
>
> Bill:
> I for one would be strongly opposed to it.
>
> Wolfgang:
> Why? I do not understand it. Academic advise to the IGF is one of  
> our targets with regard to the Malta/Dresden process on a "Global  
> Internet Governance Academic Research network".
>
> Best
>
> wolfgang
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>