[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

[Suzanne Woolf]

Michael,

On Dec 22, 2013, at 6:55 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> John (and also following Suzanne,
>  
> Please be aware that I am not commenting on or suggesting operating principles for Inet itself, a subject on which at this time I have no information and thus no opinion.  However, I am most certainly commenting on the nomination procedures from the CS grouping concerning CS representation on the Inet committees and as I mentioned before since Inet seems to have designated certain representational structures as exclusive sources for nomination from specific stakeholder groups, and moreover seems to have accepted those nominations, then Inet is most definitely responsible for any faults in those processes and their outcomes and is similarly responsible to take appropriate actions once this has been pointed out.

Thank you for this clarification, as I've been following this discussion mostly in an attempt to arrive at my own view of where the 1net steering committee needs to be able to start if it's to be useful.

I likewise can't comment on CS grouping or representation. Nor would I assert that those are immaterial, for CS or any stakeholder group (and I'll add that I'm skeptical of rigid categories of stakeholders to begin with). However, I do feel rather strongly that "you have to start somewhere," and the risk to any contribution 1net might make in areas of internet governance comes partly from disregarding those factors in forming positions and mobilizing action-- but comes just as much from failing to engage on any issue of substance because it didn't first engage on the somewhat more tractable work of building a platform and promoting participation in a community that can address those really thorny issues.

But then, my picture of the intention and role of 1net, and the need for a steering committee, is framed largely by the Montevideo statement and what I know of its antecedents and the participant organizations, with specific preparations for the Brazil meeting as something of an overlay. To the extent that the 1net steering committee is for the purposes that John Curran has described as the next step beyond having one arbiter of process and priorities (thank you Adiel!) on matters such as collaboration tools for participants, I think there's plenty of room to make progress while remaining open, transparent, and flexible for anyone who wants to do some work. To the extent that it's about forming positions for the Brazil meeting, the time constraints worry me-- but that makes it all the more important that we start where we can.

It's also worth noting that there will be "faults in those processes" for CS, for other stakeholder groups, for 1net itself, and for any participant or subprocess along the way, and 1net has the same responsibility as any other group seeking consensus and credibility to evolve to avoid or mitigate those. However, I'm happy that we appear to be in agreement that progress depends on accepting that responsibility and moving ahead as best we can.

best,
Suzanne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131229/e783c8ad/attachment.html>