[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

[John Curran]

On Dec 20, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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. 

Definite agreement - pursuing continuous improvement in these processes
is quite important, and I believe should be a collective goal of all involved.
(My objection is more regarding the questioning of the legitimacy of any
present outcomes, given the significant imperfections inherent in the system)

> 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.) 

Absolutely, particularly at the point in time when we are working on actual
topics - many of these folks lack time or related resources to participate in 
discussions about Internet cooperation in general, but would likely comment
on particular issues that they have views or given consideration to.

> 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.

Some aspects of the above I believe in (discourse on each topic based on 
the merits of the ideas themselves, not their origin), but I believe that we all
need to bring good ideas from everywhere (and everyone) that we can, in
that manner trying to address the "only those with the time and money" bias
that might otherwise occur.

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

Per above - ideas based on their merit, not origin; all of us acting as conduits
for those who may have views or ideas to contribute.

Thanks,
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.