[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee
langdonorr at gmail.com
Fri Dec 20 04:45:53 UTC 2013
George and Andrew, your two recent posts get a **HUGE** +++1 from me I
*Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)*
On 20 December 2013 15:34, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>wrote:
> I largely agree with Andrew's view of this issue.
> We have a multitude of issues in the IG space that could stand increased
> understanding and improvement. If we could focus on the issues and work
> toward that increased understanding of the issue, the alternatives, and the
> pros and cons of the alternatives, then we might be making progress toward
> improving IG.
> I've argued before that stakeholder silos have negative effects. On of
> them is that they push us to think of interest groups rather than problems
> and solutions across all of us.
> I like Andrew's dictum of "do stuff, structure later." while we may beed
> some kind of structure going into implementation, let's make it as loose
> and as non-prescriptive as possible. Maybe the structure should be around
> issues rather than occupants of silos?
> Michael Gurstein and I had what I thought was a useful exchange a few
> weeks ago. The hypothesis that I think we tended to agree upon, more or
> less (Michael, please correct me if you disagree), was the following
> (somewhat simplified): that the fight over representation is really a proxy
> war; the real fight -- the hidden fight -- is over different opinions on
> issues, and the representation fight allows the issue fight to be hidden.
> To the extent that this is the case, the representation fight obstructs
> getting to the issues and is counterproductive to our work. Let's get
> directly to the issues. In doing so, let's realize that agreement on
> issues cuts across stakeholder silos, and let's rethink how best to
> structure these conversations.
> On Dec 19, 2013, at 10:35 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > Dear colleagues,
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0000, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> >> I enjoyed the semi-public back-and-forth regarding selection of
> >> Civil Society representatives, which seemed to involve folks from a
> >> number of different backgrounds, sectors, "home groups" and
> >> geographic areas,
> > Me too.
> >> That is certainly a good basis (so to speak) for such representation
> >> to be determined.
> > Why is it not an equally good basis for not bothering with
> > "representation", and instead with embracing rough consensus combined
> > with them-what-does-the-work-wins? That is, why do we need some sort
> > of boss-of-activity to lead? Why isn't "bottom up" good enough when
> > it's time to decide what to do? Those who've already done get to keep
> > doing!
> > I am concerned that the default here seems to be "create structure
> > then do" rather than "do stuff; structure later." The former is
> > consistent with a view in which action needs to be governed before we
> > have any actions. But that's not (at least in the small) how the
> > Internet was started, and I'm pretty doubtful that we'd have any
> > Internet without the support the pioneers got.
> > Best regards,
> > A
> >> Greg Shatan
> >> (my opinions are my own and not of those of any body or anybody else.)
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:53 PM
> >> To: discuss at 1net.org
> >> Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee
> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:22:51PM +0100, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> >>> 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
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss