[Mmwg] IGF mechanism 5.0

[William Drake]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]

> Evening Bill,

Morning, McT,

> 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).

Right, so should we create a new category of participant in UN discussions
for people who don't actually wish to participate in UN discussions,
particularly if the views it might promote are already represented by or at
least consistent with established stakeholder groupings?  More generally, I
recognize that the traditional trichotomy doesn't capture a lot of stuff,
and that self-identities and positions don't always fit into three neat
boxes, but if in response you multiply categories it can get really messy
quickly.  And in any event, we've been through this discussion before
without resolution, there's little reason to think we'd get somewhere this
time, and the UN and other participants would be unlikely to reach consensus
on it either.  Developing country governments in particular would be
opposed.

>  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.

Sure.  They just don't define the scope of "academia."  Most of the
academics I know who have been involved in WSIS are not on the same page as
ISOC's leadership, in whole or in part.  It would not be good to create a
category of "academic and technical" that represents just a particular slice
of academic and excludes other views.

> <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.

So they would participate as CS, not as academic, which would be a category
reserved for the right-minded?

> 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!

So, the uh, T&A group, would be the experts, and the rest of the stakeholder
groupings would be the what, non-experts?  That'd go down well.  Recall the
Brazilian reply when the US said that ISOC should convene the IGF---"then
why don't we just call it the Internet Kindergarten Forum?"

We can go around and around on this on line until arthritis sets in and we
won't get anywhere, and meanwhile I don't see that others are all that
interested in the thread.  Maybe better to save it for a beer at IGF.

Best,

Bill