[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Thu Dec 19 21:05:40 UTC 2013

The line-up could single a number of possibilities. However, one I am inclined to believe would be that there are conflicting perspectives from the Selector's constituency in terms of whether names should be fielded in terms of the social and political ramifications of supporting the initiative instead of allowing for the status quo as usual. 

This could mean that in the short time span, people still are having trouble agreeing in whether to participate or not. I would assume that there were some who feel that to not participate is to be absent from an important conversation.

As such, I would assume that the selection or appointees would have been made from those who made themselves available on short notice.  It just so happens that they are largely US based. If other entities deliberately chose to stay out of the conversation, then we can't really criticise those who did volunteer to stand! can we?


Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 20, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> 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

More information about the discuss mailing list