The simple response to this is: if "academia" wants to form a constituency,
it is free to do so. It is a bottom-up process, not a top-down one.
But as Andrew points out, "academics" are distinct from "academia" -- to
underscore this distinction, one might consider "academia" to be
represented by university administrators as opposed to faculty, for example.
What I am sure about is that "academia" can decide for itself what it wants
to do, and for those outside "academia" to put words in its mouth seems
modestly presumptuous.
To date, "academics" in NCUC/NCSG have not found a purpose to form a
separate constituency. A few of them here have already explained why. I
think we should take them at their word.
Dan
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
At 10:05 AM +0900 3/26/12, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
>> We already have a vocal and knowledgeable subgroup of academics in
>> NCUC/NCSG and on our GNSO Council. Knowledge and experience are quite
>> useful of course, and to boot, it is as a result of SG elections,
>> right?
>
>Academics who work in a particular field are often good candidates for such
>roles because both their level of expertise and the relative flexibility of
>their circumstances allow them to devote significant resources to such roles.
>
>> I venture to say however, from my long experience in developing
>> countries and, more recently on boards of NGOs, that NGOs prefer by
>> far to be represented by NGO officers than by academics... like I'm
>> sure academia would prefer to be represented by academics than by NGO
>> officers.
>
>But here is where the misunderstanding about an "academic" constituency comes
>in. We (KK, Milton, myself, amongst a number of other academics active on
>this list) do no participate as "representatives of academia". We are
>involved because we are subject experts in information/computer law, internet
>governance, information ethics and other related subjects. We are here not to
>represent universities or our fellow academics in their needs. As I said, if
>universities felt the need to be so represented then an (NPO) HE
>institutional constituency could be created, or their representatives could
>simply join NCSG directly or NCSG&NCUC (they are, after all non-commercial
>organisational users). If such a constituency were created I'm sure a number
>of the academics here would add that constituency to their memberships (as
>allowed by the SG charter, a point we fought hard to get included) but not
>replacing their NCUC membership with it. In that case I, and I suspect all
>the other academics here, would see it as a separate role to help advise the
>HE reps on matters using our dual expertise in matters HE and in the subject
>matter. Our individual memberships of NCSG&NCUC would continue, based as they
>are on our expertise and interest in the general subject matter.
>
>I have rarely seen any of the academics here raise questions of the specific
>needs of HE institutions and certainly not as anything other than one of many
>competing interests (albeit one with which we are very familiar). Many
>academics also participate in various other NGOs in the same way they
>participate in ICANN. Our expertise can be highly useful and we do not usuall
>represent our institutions in such matters but act as independent academics.
>I certainly see my role here to provide honest informed and balanced input to
>the debate, not to represent HE as a sector - other people are paid to do
>that. I am paid to question perceived wisdom and contribute to society
>through my research, teaching and engagement with other actors in society,
>not to represent my institution or academia at large.
>
>See my sig below for one of my non-HE institutional affiliations (an NGO in
>fact).
>
>--
>Professor Andrew A Adams [log in to unmask]
>Chair, ACM SIGCAS http://www.sigcas.org/
> (Special Interest Group on Computers and Society)
>Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/
|
