[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

Fri Dec 20 14:51:40 UTC 2013

Great Corsair,

On 12/20/2013 11:30 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Grande Carlos
> 
> On Dec 20, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi people,
>>
>> Writing as a member of the local organizing group (LOG): we are
> 
> Great, a new acronym to add to our lexicography, and one that invites
> all kinds of bad puns etc. as well :-)

In Portuguese, the acronym is GOL -- we are striving to score a big goal
in April :)

> 
>> extremely worried because time is an independent variable and we badly
>> need a clear definition from all stakeholders as soon as possible.
>>
>> To CS: please forget about the other stakeholders (they have their own
>> challenges and they will have to solve them). If CS is going to restart
>> the infighting to define representing names, now on who will sit at the
>> 1Net Steering Committee, instead of building upon the imperfect but
>> reasonable process we managed to do so far, you will be pushing LOG into
>> a corner as we have to define the committees ASAP.
> 
> +1, to put it mildly
>>
>> LOG must have the two main committees (high level and executive)
>> basically defined by the end of this year. My *personal suggestion* is:
>> CS accepts for the 1Net Steering Committee the nominating group which we
>> defined for the Icann HL meeting, as proposed now. We will of course be
>> able to keep an eye on them as we usually do. And let CS try and define
>> the 2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as
>> soon as possible (before this year ends).
> 
> Could you perhaps clarify two points?
> 
> *You refer to CS' "2-3 names for the HL committee.”   Adiel’s initial 18
> November message said it was "8 /1net Internet community representatives
> (senior executive level)” for the Multistakeholder High-Level Committee
> and " 6 governmental representatives, and 6 /1net community
> representatives” for the Multistakeholder Executive Committee.  Could
> you remind us what the desired mix of stakeholders is, and whether it’s
> just business/TC/CS or also academics (per the 1net coordination comm)?

It seems the HL Committee will have 10 govs, so I think of having enough
nominations from CS to keep the balance. So let us have three names to
make sure.

The Exec Committee will also have 8 non-gov people appointed trough the
1Net mechanism, so we will need to make sure there is a proper pluralist
balance here. So CS should have at least two names ready. I know, 8 is
not divisible by three stakeholders... but we will have to accomodate
Brazilian stakeholders as well. I feel like a lousy chess player playing
chess with a pro Russian...

> 
> *We’ve been told that the Multistakeholder High-Level Committee "will
> set the high-level political tone and objectives of the conference”
> while the Multistakeholder Executive Committee "owns the full
> responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference
> purpose/agenda,” etc.  I’m not entirely clear on the division of labor
> this implies, and whether different skill sets would be optimal…should
> the former indeed be senior executive level?
> 
>>
>> LOG agreed 1Net will be the conduit to send the names of all non-gov
>> sectors to it, since there is representation of all sectors in their
>> Steering Committee.
> 
> Thank you for clarifying this, as whether or not that’s the desired
> procedure has been the subject of a lot of excess cycles and drama.

Yes, on our side too (as a reflection of the planetary anxieties... :)).
But I think there is a consensus everybody has to play fair and *very*
carefully.

>>
>> BTW, in this (imperfect) way CS will be *far better* than the business
>> community in terms of all balances. And please recall that the meeting
>> is planned for about 1,000 participants, so plenty of space to come to
>> SP and participate.
>>
>> []s fraternos with eyes on the ticking clock…
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill

frt rgds

--c.a.