Marcolla, Sara Veronica <Sara.Marcolla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I do understand it. However, in many cases, when the one and only
> governmental representative on a list/working group etc
> agrees/disagrees on a position, paper or policy, he or she does not so
> in personal capacity. He or she is representing hundreds of
> stakeholders "behind", who entrusted this specific individual to follow
> up and engage on behalf - often - of entire governments. That is,
> hundreds of people, or even hundreds of governmental agencies.
> This vote, however, gets counted as one, as the one of any Joe or
> Alice. This is the big issue of participation, with regards to
> government engagement in a multistakeholder environment. Often
> administrations do not find a good investment to make sure an
> individual is delegated to do so (with all internal coordination
> efforts, in some case at national level, in other even at international
> level), just to have one voice diluted so much.
It seems that this calls for a liason statement, then.
---
Meanwhile, "Alice" might be a world-renown cryptographer, and "Joe" might
operate the world largest ISP (for some definition of "largest").
While none of the expertise of those "stakeholders" may even be relevant,
or they could be nobel laureates. But to the point, we didn't get a chance to
find out, and rather like the "First-Past-The-Point" electoral systems,
are you also delivering a minority report from the stakeholders?
Given that email participation is free, and remote attendance is also free,
my advice is simple:
Stack the meeting. Please.
Send 100 review comments.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
