[Mmwg] revised draft input

[William Drake]

Hi W,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:05 PM
> To: William Drake; Milton Mueller; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input
>
>
> 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

I don't recall this, sorry.  If you've said it here it didn't resonate and I
don't recall anyone else talking about it.

> 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).

If you said that in the Chateau last July, sorry, I didn't write it down.
But I do not in any way shape or form agree that the interest groups seeking
to be elevated to a status above and beyond everyone else are remotely
neutral or not involved in advocacy.

> 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".

Sure, but it does not follow from this that we need a separate body of
presumably 'more expert' T&A people to advise a PC made of govt, biz, and CS
and which presumably will include T&A anyway.  It will become a political
point of contention---who get on which why, how they interrelate, why it's
necessary in the first place, etc.  And would you like to explain to the
rest of CS that all of us from academic backgrounds are now in some separate
group that will advise them from on high?

BD