[Mmwg] Why are you here?

[Max Senges]

First of all I would like to express my support and sympathy for Taran's
approach and call for focusing on how to setup for maximum community/netizen
participation. For me it makes a lot of sense to first ask what the IGF
needs to be and then how these needs can be satisfied.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, (as Taran has done with his post) I would like to present quickly
why I am participating in this Working Group and what my interests/positions
are. 

In my understanding the IGF is meant for democratic and transparent
deliberation and discourse on the nature, constitution and particularities
of the socio-technical space created through the internet. As I have
expressed before for me there is a rational sequence of the
discussion/negotiation of the constituting 'code' of cyberspace. First
values & ethics(human rights in cyberspace), then deduce a shared vision &
planning, and then work on the concrete rules and regulations organising
daily practice (see e.g. the position paper I have developed for CDUN
http://www.uno-komitee.de/en/documents/internetgovernance.pdf). As such I am
quite interested to see how the Bill of Rights for Cyberspace approach
initiated by the Italian government will develop. 

For me the IGF needs to allow as many netizens as possible to participate,
thus it needs to (1) be usable (easy to navigate/comprehend the ontology
(topic-space), easy enter in discussions - for that I would suggest
different layers of complexity (e.g. newbie, practitioner overview, profound
dialogue)) 2) have a transparent code of conduct (processes, netiquette,
etc) 3) and it needs professional facilitation and distillation of
overviews/consensus building etc.

And yes, in my view the vast majority of the work of the IGF should happen
online. I believe this to be essential for one reasons: Inclusiveness - (1)
an online forum is available 24/7 in your preferred working space for
virtually no cost, the internet allows for the first time that the whole
world sits together at one table and we should exploit this groundbreaking
structural innovation; (2) the majority of the limited resources the
organisers of the forum have, can go into facilitating/energizing/supporting
the deliberation and discourse(instead investing in costly physical events)


Again, I am a 27 year old phd student with a good decade of netizen
experience and a personal and professional passion for cyberspace/the net. I
participate in the MMWG because I enjoy the discourse, because I write my
thesis about what the internet means to higher education institutions (and
one argument is that it allows for professional (scientific) discourse) and
because I believe it is my responsibility as netizen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly I would like to invite you to also share, in some paragraphs, who you
are and why you are here. (if you agree I would volunteer to put your
'profile and position' on the wiki)

max

-----Original Message-----
From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Taran Rampersad
Sent: lunes, 23 de enero de 2006 9:42
To: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [Mmwg] Re: IGF mechanism 5.0

Milton Mueller wrote:
>>>> Taran Rampersad <cnd at knowprose.com> 1/23/2006 1:30:33 AM >>>
>>>>         
>> I agree with Vittorio.
>>     
>
> huh? can you explain why?
>   
As Vittorio wrote; "if the Chair doesn't satisfy everyone, people will 
stop to participate": which is dangerous for the less powerful groups, 
including civil society".

I don't always agree with Vittorio, but I've found him pretty pragmatic 
(thus I supported his nomination for WGIG) and sensible. I really wrote 
my support out because you wrote, "IGF has a purely advisory status and 
yet Vittorio is talking about the Plenary as if it were some hugely 
dangerous thiing."

Well, it's not just Vittorio, but I don't recall him equating it to 
jumping in front of a speeding bus, which I would consider a hugely 
dangerous thing. :-) I would say that it is a thing which requires 
caution. While yourself and others may see the plenary as benign, others 
do not. I've seen the WSIS CS Plenary go back and forth - I am on the 
list but have been quiet, reading the messages - and when I look at the 
long view, I see a lot of *competing* viewpoints instead of a lot of 
integration of vision. That is a dangerous thing, because wrong turns 
early on can lead to disastrous results, and from the perspective that 
Vittorio presented, that loses the base - because it means loss of 
participation. I stopped participating in the WSIS CS plenary the moment 
I thought I was wasting my time and could have no effect.

Frankly, a method of structure doesn't bother me too much - I don't care 
who does whatever, who flies around and eats expensive meals, or gets to 
meet Koffi Annan and gets to play 20 questions with him. That is not 
relevant. What is relevant is that whatever the structure, there must be 
a maintained method of communication involved. The structure itself 
should be superfluous. This is where I took on the PCT caucus, including 
Greves and Stallman, about how they were representing the 'community' 
without having discussion with the community. Lose the community, you 
lose everything. While I respect the people here, I respect the larger 
community that is supposed to be represented even more than all of you 
combined.

Start talking about how the community will interact with the plenary and 
the structure will define itself; the process in this case should define 
the product. We need the community. And to be successful, we need to 
deal with the community first. WSIS kept the world outside just as big 
business and government kept Civil Society outside. Remove the layer of 
politics, put in a participative democracy, and the weight behind the 
group will provide it's own pivot and leverage. Otherwise, it's like 
that Ernie and Bert skit where no matter how many ways Ernie rearranges 
the cookies, the sum remains the same.

That's my opinion, that's my central belief on this, and that's why I'm 
here.

-- 
Taran Rampersad
Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago
cnd at knowprose.com

Looking for contracts/work!
http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786

New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran

"Criticize by creating." - Michelangelo

_______________________________________________
mmwg mailing list
mmwg at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg