[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

[Mawaki Chango]

To be clear (and hopefully brief), I don't believe direct democracy would
be an effective decision making-process in this context, at this scale
(maybe unless we can set up an online system that is highly secure,
reliable and designed to provide us with fine and accurate analytical
tools, etc., etc.. you get my point.) On the other hand, I don't think we
can, nor do I expect us to, find a perfect representational system either
before we can accomplish anything, or ever. However, when we see too
obvious flaws in the already imperfect representation/delegation schemes
we're dealt, we can and should make a good faith effort to address them.

In the same spirit (and I'm glad you mentioned the education and distant
learning community which, just like potentially several others, are not
even present in this space), I am hoping that people like yourself and
others knowing of such outside and yet relevant groups would reach out to
them and make sure they hear at least our calls for inputs when the time
comes (hoping there will be those) so that they may at least submit a
written statement about their most pressing needs which processes like this
one would take into account (of course, it would be even better if they
could join the closest "stakeholder" grouping that can speak to their
needs/interests.)

The only alternate path I see, which would really be true to the opposite
position, would be to dismantle all stakeholder groups in IG, to even ban
that term from our parlance and erase that notion from our mind, and claim
that we are just a collection of individuals with personal interest in IG
and sometimes with societal concerns. Will only be listened to whoever can
afford to spend time and money (traveling to meetings, paying for internet
connection and even being able to use the working language) on the sole
basis of the merit of their ideas as individuals. And with that we will
have great outcomes for a stable and secure global Internet.

If between those two paths, anyone sees other possible, workable,
effective, sensible forms of participation, I'd be glad to hear from them.

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 11:50 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131220/e7d4d0ba/attachment.html>