[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

Fri Dec 20 13:01:48 UTC 2013

Hi people,

Writing as a member of the local organizing group (LOG): we are
extremely worried because time is an independent variable and we badly
need a clear definition from all stakeholders as soon as possible.

To CS: please forget about the other stakeholders (they have their own
challenges and they will have to solve them). If CS is going to restart
the infighting to define representing names, now on who will sit at the
1Net Steering Committee, instead of building upon the imperfect but
reasonable process we managed to do so far, you will be pushing LOG into
a corner as we have to define the committees ASAP.

LOG must have the two main committees (high level and executive)
basically defined by the end of this year. My *personal suggestion* is:
CS accepts for the 1Net Steering Committee the nominating group which we
defined for the Icann HL meeting, as proposed now. We will of course be
able to keep an eye on them as we usually do. And let CS try and define
the 2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as
soon as possible (before this year ends).

LOG agreed 1Net will be the conduit to send the names of all non-gov
sectors to it, since there is representation of all sectors in their
Steering Committee.

BTW, in this (imperfect) way CS will be *far better* than the business
community in terms of all balances. And please recall that the meeting
is planned for about 1,000 participants, so plenty of space to come to
SP and participate.

[]s fraternos with eyes on the ticking clock...

--c.a.

On 12/20/2013 09:14 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Well dear fellow multistakeholders,
> 
> Here is the state of play as we enter the holiday period.
> 
> Business community chooses the biggest and richest without thought for
> balance.
> 
> Technical community needs more time to get the job done.
> 
> Academic community works hard on deciding what an academic is.
> 
> Civil society implodes.
> 
> 
> 
> All sounds like business as usual to me (but maybe my cynicism will wear
> off by morning).
> 
> 
> I am not going to bore this list with a description of the civil society
> processes that came up with a very good representative set of names. If
> you want to know about the processes adopted, read the IGC or Best Bits
> archives (or email me). Having worked with the various civil society
> groups as an independent facilitator, I can tell you that the civil
> society reps involved knew their processes were imperfect, had little or
> no time to do anything about it, but ploughed ahead to come up with a
> very good and widely accepted result.
> 
> Those chosen for civil society were selected for their capacity to
> represent all of civil society, not just their own organisations, and to
> work collegiately with other stakeholder groups. In a less talented
> field perhaps Klaus or Michael, both of whom were candidates, might have
> been chosen.
> 
> Anyway
> 
> All the best to you all and I look forward to some positive advances in
> the new year!
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 