[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

Fri Dec 20 10:36:40 UTC 2013

Andrew, George, Cheryl et al.

Particularly on the dictum of "do stuff, structure later." That's nice and
well, and it sounds good to my ears, too. However:

1. This thread took off after it was noted that one constituency has shown
a lack of sensitivity to diversity at the global level in their choice of
"representatives" or "delegates" or "spokespeople" to the /1net
coordination committee. Their choice seems to narrow even more the
stakeholder boundaries. So blaming this on the stakeholder model and silos
does work for solving that.

2. Do the proponents of the "do stuff, structure later" approach really
have a clear idea of the "stuff" that we are called to do here? I would
think those of us who are all about the "stuff" may start doing it without
waiting for the committee to be formed. The only thing is that once the
committee will be formed and the decision-making processes will be agreed
on, your work will have to be vetted then - and might well be accepted
maybe with a few improvements (I don't see why this wouldn't be possible).

3. Modeling the "do stuff, structure later" (DSSL) approach on its use in
the early days of the internet begs the question - how well has that
worked? A handful number of engineers, aware of each other's expertise and
trusting each other, loosely making decisions for a network of a limited
number of small networks which they only envisioned to serve a tight
community of researchers is one thing. Agreeing on decisions or seeking
consensus for decisions that will shape a truly global network of an
indefinite number of networks may be another. Do you think you can just
apply DSSL like in the old days for this? Yes, the internet has been
tremendously successful by the measure of the scale of its adoption.
However, I am not sure the problems that internet has been having
(security, spam, privacy, surveillance, etc.) have nothing to do with the
loosely manner that comes with the DSSL approach.

4. If those problems weren't there, we probably wouldn't be having a /1net
coalition (as by its current purpose), we wouldn't have had a Montevideo
declaration, maybe we wouldn't even have had an NSA scandal (admittedly,
perhaps I'm being too optimistic here), and we would have been spared a
sizeable part of the WSIS and post-WSIS processes and talks and efforts,
etc. So did the model you're proposing work that well, still at this global
level we are now?

5. In themselves, those problems have been around before Snowden
revelations. So if DSSL is the glorious formula it is here presented to be
to solve our woes, why "stuff" wasn't been done before /1net, before the
NSA scandal to solve them? If we are about "just do it" mantra and we think
that would work to solve the problem we are facing here, why did we wait
for the NSA scandal, for president Rousseff's speech, for the decision to
hold a meeting in Brazil and now for /1net to start?

6. I'm not advocating for stakeholder silos, nor am I enamored with
processes and structure per se. However, I think both competing approaches
have some merits, at different levels. I would certainly contend the notion
that DSSL is necessarily always best, and can productively scale up to any
level. I'm afraid the process/structure efforts are part of justifiable
transaction costs. They are part of the price to pay to scale up globally
what seemed to work among a tiny community of those in the know. Others
have been paying their share of transaction costs (as for instance having
to master the English language to be able to contribute in a meaningful
manner, which still leaves hundreds of millions completely unaccounted
for.) So now are we saying: let's the few of us who are knowledgeable and
readily capable to speak to the issues do the "stuff", and whoever is
willing to join may do so later, and that it's not worth taking the time to
explain to the rest or to devise ways to be effectively inclusive even of
those who have already paid their fair share of transaction costs to be
able to engage in this space?

7. Whatever approach you choose, please just make sure it doesn't look like
implied in the above question. As I said before (and Milton also has
suggested talking about academics), this is just the coordination
committees. It is not yet the actual "stuff" to be done. And again, those
who are all about the "stuff" to be done can start now, decision will be
made when the right structure for that will be in place.

Thanks,

Mawaki

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

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> George
> I agree that focusing too much on "representation" obscures dealing with
> issues. But hey, we are talking about a coordinating committee for 1net,
> which is administrative and not substantive. This means that the committee
> does need to be "representative" in some sense, so that different segments
> of the community feel that they have  channels of communication into it and
> that their interests will not get ignored as decisions are made about how
> the substance is discussed. Indeed, in trying to scare up academics to
> participate, I have been warning them that they should NOT volunteer for
> this committee if they want to make big contributions to substantive
> issues; only people willing to listen and try to be stewards and
> peacemakers need apply.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
> Behalf Of George Sadowsky
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:34 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee
>
> All,
>
> 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.
>
> George
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> 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
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131220/c555ad32/attachment-0001.html>