[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Thu Dec 19 21:09:25 UTC 2013


Without commenting in any way on the current topic, I enjoyed the semi-public back-and-forth regarding selection of Civil Society representatives, which seemed to involve folks from a number of different backgrounds, sectors, "home groups" and geographic areas, and which has seemed to result in a slate of representatives from  a number of different backgrounds, sectors, "home groups" and geographic areas.  That is certainly a good basis (so to speak) for such representation to be determined.

Greg Shatan
(my opinions are my own and not of those of any body or anybody else.)

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:53 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:22:51PM +0100, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>
> I am actually *disturbed* by the naivety with which this is all being
> set-up. This line-up is the *best* way to have the multi-stakeholder
> model ridiculed & shot down -- as in, the "multi-stakeholder model" is
> nothing but window dressing for US multi-nationals to keep their
> control over the Internet.

Why?  It just turns out that we've named that "stakeholder" group incorrectly.  It's not the business stakeholder group.  It's the large US business interest group.  They're a stakeholder.  We just need a different set to represent other kinds of stake, such as small businesses or non-US businesses or whatever.

This is, in fact, the very reason I have been uncomfortable with the representative-of-group model that's being pursued, and part of why I have refused to volunteer as any sort of representative of "the Technical Community".  I have no idea what the boundary of that community is, I am pretty sure that I can't represent all of it, and I have no idea how I could legitimately claim to.

In my opinion, the constitution of the steering/co-ordinating/whatever we call it committee is just illegitmate.  There's no way for anyone to tell who represents any constituency, and the chance that the representation is somehow wrong approaches 1.

I'm aware that we need to bootstrap this effort.  My claim is that it would be more legitimate if we did that _ad hoc_ until such time as we have some things running.  That way, we don't drown the effort in early wrangling over committee structure, internal governance, legitimacy of participants to represent anyone, and so on.  Instead, by trying to build the org structure first, we have wandered into those topics without any way to declare disputes legitimately resolved.

John Curran already provided a rebuttal to my argument, and I'm not willing to wrangle over it.  But I think we have set things up precisely to yield these sorts of results.

Best regards,

Andrew
(as ever, for myself only)

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00


More information about the discuss mailing list