[Mmwg] IGF mechanism 5.0

[McTim]

Evening Bill,

On 1/21/06, William Drake <wdrake at ictsd.ch> wrote:
> We actually had a rather long debate about the academic and technical
> category in WGIG and on the caucus list precisely because of this.  While
> nobody doubts that A&T is a important cross-cutting social formation, a
> large chunk of it rests in the non-profit sector,

ACK

CS.  As such, some of us
> felt that treating it as a separate, 4th stand-alone constituency could
> dilute what influence CS has.

I don't see this at all.  The people That I know who do the current IG
work  (IETF, RIR community members, Routing Registries, NRENs, etc)
weren't part of CS @ WSIS.  Most weren't present or represented at all
(except arguably by ISOC).


 Moreover, the category has been strategically
> appropriated and deployed, most by ISOC and the ICC (a choir in constant
> harmony), to suggest that A&T is a core part of an "Internet community" that

this is simple truth. People who built and operate the networks that
allow our machines and networks to communicate are a "core' part of
the Inet Community.

<snip>
 And in this usage,
> "academic" is sort of construed to mean technical people who agree this
> line, not, inter alia, social science types who might favor progressive
> reforms.  However, others did not see these concerns as that problematic.

I don't see it as a concern as, for example, Milton, Hans, Derek &
Jeannette can be CS reps to the IGF.

While the IETF, inter alia, academics can be part of T&A.

<snip>
>
> In parallel, I think the "experts" formulation is problematic.

I agree.  With a T&A group tho, you know you got experts on board!

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim