Re: [Internetgovtech] Involvement from other constituencies

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 05:06:43PM +0100, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
> 
> So would you agree that in order to make sure all the requirements are
> factored in, we need to make sure the number, but especially the range
> of expertise, sensitivities etc of those who participate in the definition
> of requirements should be enlarged? Please correct me if I misunderstood
> your thinking.

I am not one who especially believes that representativity is the
essential need, so getting the number or range of people -- "those who
participate" -- is to me much less important than getting the range of
views to take into consideration.  Often, people can be effective
advocates for a view they have, but sometimes people can be good
advocates for something even if they don't especially agree with it.
The key thing is to ensure that the different considerations -- for
example whether people will build or deploy a thing, whether it adds
positively to the networks, the kinds of uses to which it can be put,
and even whether it contributes to or detracts from various other
social values -- ought to be in the mix when figuring out how to
describe a problem.  This is why I think it is important especially
that public policy types and so on be solicited for feedback in the
run-up to a BoF or the chartering of a WG.  

I hope that makes it clearer.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]