[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri Dec 20 01:24:46 UTC 2013

On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:27 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:

 In the process of constituting their "Nominating Committee" there was no attempt to reach out to additional organizations with interests or activities in the broad IG area but which were not directly active in the very limited existing CS IG spaces.

... which would imply that the resulting nominating committee may be predisposed towards
those organizations which _are_ directly active in the very limited existing CS IG spaces.

While not ideal, that outcome is actually quite reasonable given that this is still an evolving
process.   I do not believe that 1net should be making judgments or second guessing the
relative merits of initial coordinating committee members - the imprecision is inherent to
"representative multi-stakeholder" models, with the resulting obligation correctly placed
upon you to obtain recognition from the rest of the self-identifying CS community.

I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your decision in this matter, go back to the "CS" "nominating committee" and insist that they conduct an appropriate, transparent, and accountable process inclusive of ALL those in Civil Society with an active interest and “stake” in Internet Governance matters.

I would oppose any such action, as it effectively puts the burden of developing "a process
for having creating perfect representation for any given community" (quite likely to be an
unachievable goal) in the way of forward progress.   If you feel that the initial configuration
is less than ideal, I'd recommend proposing improvements once things get underway.  For
example, I have no idea what the most appropriate "stakeholder" groups are, and to some
extent view the delineations of various categories to be archaic given the varied and multiple
roles that any given person has in the Internet today.   Based on my own activities, I have
been labelled as technical, business, not-for-profit, governmental, and Internet industry...
Are my views  to be excluded because I don't clearly advocate from just one particular

The answer is "No" - we are not talking about excluding anyone's views from the discussion
of Internet governance matters; we're simply discussing a having a larger group of folks make
administrative decisions about 1net should and should not be than the present situation of
having Adiel do it all himself.  (btw, everyone should say "Thanks!" to Adiel for all of his efforts
if you haven't already :-)

 In the absence of this, unfortunately your process itself will be equally contaminated as was the "CS" process and the outcome of your activities will be equally unrepresentative of those globally who are impacted by and thus “stakeholders” in the Internet.

Produce algorithm which defines how to achieve true "equal representation" of all impacted
stakeholders globally, and I'll be the first to rally behind its use.  Absent such, the current
process of having community segments self-organize and identify themselves appears to
be the best that we have available, particularly for purposes of establishing initial conditions
necessary for deliberations on what 1net is to be, how it will determine tasks to take on, how
deliberations and input will be organized, etc.   I expect the resulting coordination committee
to be sufficiently bright folks that they'll accept useful suggestions (whether from you or I) in
these areas; it is up to you whether to participate in 1net under such conditions or whether
to abstain simply because you're not the one doing the coordinating.


Disclaimers:  My views alone (although hopefully useful by their own merits even if from
                      a stakeholder group of just one...)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131220/fdb5e547/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list