[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

[John Curran]

On Dec 20, 2013, at 5:36 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

I'll actually be more critical of the process than that - we have absolutely no idea if the various 
"constituencies" are actually an appropriate and inclusive set, and there are almost certainly 
parties that aren't involved presently that might readily claim that their needs were not fairly 
taken into consideration...

Does Civil Society and/or Academia include Education in general?  I know of several folks 
actively involved in massive online course efforts that do not believe that those from the classic 
Academic community appreciate their needs and expectations for turning the Internet into a 
true vehicle of social and economic change - yet we don't even see these folks as a distinct 
constituency despite their very germane and very specific concerns about Internet openness,
neutrality and capacity globally.   

Can someone show why we feel that the "representative multistakeholder" approach is
actually inclusive and/or valid?   As long as the coordinating committee is an administrative
function, then the lack of explanation is likely not fatal, but concerns about the specific 
process used for any given "community" first presume an overall soundness of the approach 
for global representation which is not yet in evidence.

With respect to the "Do Stuff, Structure Later", we are trying to have some actual "structure",
hence the representative multistakeholder approach to the 1net coordinating committee, with
the hope that this minimal structure is enough to enable us to move forward.

The contrary view is that more rigor in seating representatives is needed before moving on
"Doing Stuff"; to which I reply that trying to achieve more rigor in perfecting representation is
moot since we can't even show that the "representative multistakeholder" approach itself is
fairly representational, i.e. that the selection of constituencies is actually based on some real-
world aspect of the Internet communities and not just gerrymandering on a grand scale.
I have faith that those selected will do their best to represent their entire constituency (and 
not just their own views), and fail to see how trying for better "representation" is meaningful
given that inherent imperfection of the overall approach.

> 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). 

If we can't achieve consensus on seating a 1net coordination committee, I would claim that it
is very premature to even determine the Internet governance topic work list for 1net, let alone 
attempt progress on any individual work item.

> 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. 

Excellent point - there is no doubt that some of the current challenges of the Internet have root
in the "Do Stuff, Structure Later" approach...  However, improved representation structure may
not have made one bit of difference in this outcome, unless you are referring to the particular 
constituency of governments who were notably absent for the first 30 years or so.  I do think
that we need to have a discussion about how to engage with governments on various Internet
challenges, and that also is far more important topic than trying to perfect appointments under
the "representative multi-stakeholder" approach which lacks any demonstrable relation to actual 
real-world communities using the Internet.

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.