EC deliberations on WGIG nominations

[Milton Mueller]

Adam:

The fairly weak nature of your objections I will deal with
below:

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 9/7/2004 4:14:08 AM >>>
>You didn't know you were discussing AFRINIC's
>Executive Director?  Bizarre.

Yes, I did know that. I reviewed his complete proposal
for Afrinic. I used vague language describing him to others,
is it important, is it even relevant?

> (Senior staff of 3
>RIRs.  Great people, unusual concentration.)

I myself raised this issue twice: once on the public list,
once in the EC conversation. I don't like it. That is
one reason why we considered Kilnam Chon so long and
hard.

On the other hand, anyone familiar with the situation
in developing countries knows that people from these
regions who are expert and informed about technical
and policy matters are extremely scarce and valuable
and hence are quickly incorporated into the two key
forms of local Internet governance: ccTLDs and RIRs.
Additionally, the names of Raul and Adiel were put into
nomination by our own members from those regions. Given
the available alternatives, we thought we made the best
choice. And this objection is rather strange coming from
you, because you yourself were pushing Paul Wilson
in other venues.

>And what a shame you couldn't agree on nominating
>a chap who will be stuck in hospital until the
>working group's half over

This is just pure sarcasm, and indicates that you have
little to contribute to the discussion. We *did* agree not
to nominate Chon for health reasons, so what is your
point in bringing this up?

>Did you do any research on these people?  Bother
>even to read Robin's not about Marco Cappato?

Yes, of course we did. Why would you question
whether we read Robin's note about Marco? Also
the record shows that Iliya is still soliciting European
opinion about Cappato.

>I appreciate that you were undertaking a pretty
>thankless and hard task.  But someone should have
>put more thought into it.

For those who know the complete background, the
source of your negative attitude is clear, and it isn't
"the amount of thought" that was put into it.

Overall, you have raised one significant issue:
the concentration of RIR people on the list. If
other members think this is a problem, speak up. If other
members wish to explicitly support those choices,
please speak up as well.

--MM