VS: [Mmwg] revised draft input

[McTim]

Hello Milton,

On 2/27/06, Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> I support including the language on T&A, but recognize Bill's concerns. I
> think Bill fears stalking horses for ISOC and ICC, to be blunt.


I agree that this is his concern, but think it should be left out of the
discussion about such a fundamental issue of including engineers while
discussing "bridge bulidng" (as Luc so aptly put it).


> Recognizing that concern, I think it would be great to get a Paul Vixie or
> a Geoff Huston (both of whom turn various shades of red at any mention of my
> name, by the way, so don't think I'm trying to populate with it my friends)
> involved.


Many turn red at the mention of your name Milton, consider it a badge of
honour!

If you create a 4th stakeholder group, you'll be more likely to get your
Vixie's n Huston's!!


> >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> > 2/27/2006 11:04 AM >>>
> 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 why do that? I can't guarantee success of the IGF, however, I think I
can guarantee failure (for some value of failure, in this case a talking
shop only = failure in many minds) IF it can't get enough of the Internet
Technical Community to care about it's recommendations.


> 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".


Wolfie, I think that it's not about "Academics", but rather the technical
folk who should be embraced (as MM gave us 2 examples above).

Not all academics are technical.

Not all tech folk are academics.

I think Avri's formulation ITOC - Technical and Operational Community is a
much better term than T&A.

It lets all the academics who are ITOC in, and allows those academics who
are not to stay safely in CS.

Let's build a big eoungh table for everyone.  For those we need to come, but
who haven't for some reason or another, let's invite them specifically.

I don't care about how governments will react, nor do I care about how the
rest of CS will react

It's the right thing to do.  Unless it gets done, all you'll have is your
talking shop, and you'll be welcome to it!

--
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/e3a3f0bb/attachment.html