<!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=222262918-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Hi
McTim,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua">Because:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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);</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua">Therefore:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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). </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Is that the
argument? </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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:-)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua">Cheers,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua">BD</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=222262918-27022006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></P></DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> McTim [mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Monday, February 27, 2006 3:21 PM<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>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid"><BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 2/27/06, <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 McTim,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">I'm still having a hard time following
your argument. Please help?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR><BR>Ok, I'll use smaller words ;-) <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">1. What institutional barriers in
the process have prevented more "clueful" people from participating?
</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR><BR>None, I didn't claim there were any, nor to my knowledge has
anyone else claimed this. <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">Were there armed guards at the door
preventing their entry? </FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>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. <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></SPAN><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">As far as I can tell, the
only limitation has been the self-imposed, i.e.
attitudinal.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>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. <BR><BR>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.<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">2. Which issues have been poorly
addressed due to the underrepresentation of clueful people?
</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>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. <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">Which specific outcomes to date
would have been different if there had been more clueful
people?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>There would have been a lot less focus on Internet resources and more
on connecting the unconnected as a real outcome. <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">3. Why would clueful people now
need a special category in order to participate?
</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>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? <BR></DIV><BR>So look at it from the reverse angle, we need spamcop
et. al., more than they need us.<BR><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">Are you saying ISOC, which has been
very active and vocal, has not effectively represented their views thus
far? </FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>I'm not aying this at all, but as many have pointed out, lots of
governments didn't take the ISOC message to heart.<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">Same goes for ICANN and related
entities, as well as the ICC, etc? </FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>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. <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>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN><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></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>Becasue they built and maintain the networks we are talking about? As
such they have insight/ capacity that your average NGO might not
have.<BR><BR>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! <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>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN><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></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>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. <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>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Appreciate
your help,</FONT></SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>Anytime m8 ;-)</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>