[Mmwg] T&O

[William Drake]

Hi McTim,

Circling back, busy day.  Not being a programmer, I'm not an expert in fuzzy logic.  So let me try once more to understand the path of your inferences here.

Because:

1.  While there were no barriers whatsoever to technical and operational people participating in WSIS, they did have to undergo the terrors of filling out the accreditation form like the rest of us;

2.  While many representatives of technical and operational orgs in fact participated to varying degrees in the WSIS (which is over and irrelevant here), many others chose not to; and

3.  Some people at some points in the four year WSIS process said somethings that weren't entirely accurate about IPv4 & 6 (usually such things got filtered out of agreed texts);


Therefore:

Technical and operational people will not accept invitations to join the Program Committee, and will not participate in any other IGF activities, unless they get their own existential category on par with governments, business, and the non-profit sectors (in which they happen to work anyway). 

Is that the argument?  

If so, I still can't follow it in theory, and don't buy it in practice.  If the SG invites Vixie or Cerf or whomever to join the PC, my bets are that a) they say yes, and b) if they say no, it won't because they didn't have their own uber-category.

Anyway, enough fun.  Wolfgang now says he wants to skip the para 8 controversy entirely.   I'd have thought my language encouraging the SG to reach out to technical people better from your perspective...oh well:-)

Cheers,

BD





-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:21 PM
To: William Drake
Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [Mmwg] IGF Input





  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/20060227/55abb6c8/attachment.html