[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

michael gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Fri Dec 20 01:35:40 UTC 2013



A rushed answer.


Creating straw men--"perfect" selection, "equal" representation--for an
argument such as this is beneath you. No one mentioned "perfection" or an
abstract notion of "equality".  Best efforts and an attitude of and behavior
in support of "inclusiveness" would be sufficient but even those were not


By designating categories for selection and then responding positively to an
evidently non-inclusive process of self-selection within those categories
Inet does become responsible whether it wishes to or not.


And as you and I both know, devils are in details and however clever or
intelligent selectees may be if their frames of reference are such as to
exclude whole categories of people (as is evident in their internal
processes) then it is hard to see how one can have any confidence in the
outcome of their deliberations or decisions.





From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 8:25 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Adiel Akplogan; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee
Importance: High


On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:27 PM, michael gurstein <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


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


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



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/e5f80eea/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list