<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Hi
McTim,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=308065709-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">I'm still having a
hard time following your argument. Please help?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=308065709-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">1. What
institutional barriers in the process have prevented more "clueful" people from
participating? Were there armed guards at the door preventing their
entry? Were </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=308065709-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua">they ever told no, go away, we (whoever that is) don't value
your input? As far as I can tell, the only limitation has been the
self-imposed, i.e. attitudinal.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=308065709-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">2. Which
issues have been poorly addressed due to the underrepresentation of clueful
people? Which specific outcomes to date would have been different if
there had been more clueful people?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=308065709-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">3. Why would
clueful people now need a special category in order to participate? Are
you saying ISOC, which has been very active and vocal, has not effectively
represented their views thus far? Same goes for ICANN and related entities,
as well as the ICC, etc? </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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?</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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?</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Appreciate your
help,</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
class=308065709-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Bill</FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> McTim
[mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 27, 2006 8:37
AM<BR><B>To:</B> William Drake<BR><B>Cc:</B>
mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Mmwg] IGF
Input<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Hello all,<BR><BR>been offline for a week on the
Swahili Coast, but am catching up and would like to weigh in on this
one.<BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 2/24/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>William
Drake</B> < <A href="mailto:drake@hei.unige.ch">drake@hei.unige.ch</A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Hi Luc,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">I don't see the problem with respect to
the chair's question. There are technical people in each of the three
societal sectors conventionally recognized in the UN and beyond,
</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>Are there really? I saw very little evidence of this during the
WSIS process. I think that there are not in actual fact very many at
all. I saw 1 clueful rep from Gov't side, a few in CS, and a few from
PS. <BR><BR>I have been advocating all along that people who operate
networks/set standards, etc., be more included if there is any chance of
success of the IGF.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">and you don't have to create a new
category catering to a particular interest group in order to
ensure that some technical people get on a IGF boot-up team.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>Me thinks we do. How else will it happen? <BR></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">There undoubtedly will be some, as
there has been in the past. Academics are in the non-profit
sector, aka CS, and they too have been included from the start.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>But very few academics with technical expertise.<BR><BR><BR>It's
clearly too late for us to include this as a MMWG submission, so I will submit
smt on my own. <BR></DIV></DIV><BR>-- <BR>Cheers,<BR><BR>McTim<BR>$ whois -h
<A href="http://whois.afrinic.net">whois.afrinic.net</A>
mctim<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>