<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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><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>