[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

Mawaki Chango kichango at gmail.com
Thu Dec 19 21:40:31 UTC 2013

Just to be sure, this is about the composition of a coordination committee,
not full delegations of representatives to participate in the actual
proceedings of a global conference.

For all the imperfections of the stakeholder model, there is such thing as
a business/commercial stakeholder group in the internet governance
environment, if my information is not outdated. The last time I checked,
they were not fragmented into recognized sub-stakeholder groups (eg, one
for the US and another for the rest of the world, one for big corporations
and another for small enterprises, etc.) As are the issues at hand, all
stakeholder groups, including business, are meant to be global. And one
would hope that by now they have established ways to reflect their
diversity in any selection of a group of people they are called to make
from their ranks.

Just my 2 cents


-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
*Mawaki Chango, PhD*
Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS Consulting
m.chango at digilexis.com
Mobile: +225 4448 7764
Skype: digilexis

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:52 PM, 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131219/959cac3d/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list