[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

Thu Dec 19 21:46:39 UTC 2013

Hello,
At 12:52 19-12-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>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.

The boundary for a constituency is not clear.  It may be difficult 
for a person to determine whether he or she is representative of 
Constituency X or Constituency Y.  When something is not clear it can 
be defined or a decision-making procedure, which people find 
suitable, can be devised.  The comments on this thread could be an 
argument for not having a representative model.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 