[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

[michael gurstein]

Thanks Suzanne and perhaps I should add some additional information at this
time.

 

As I made the community aware, that element of CS constituted under the
framework of the "CS Coordinating Committee" (CC:CS) chose to proceed in
relation to Inet and elsewhere in exclusion of the Community Informatics
community (CI); in processes without transparency or accountability; and
with some question as to the appropriateness of the outcomes of their
internal nomination and other processes. 

 

As a direct consequence of this, CI has undertaken to develop its own
transparent and fully accountable nomination process including for
nomination for participation in all aspects of Inet to which Civil Society
has been invited. Since CI represents quite a considerable portion both of
those seeking to be active in the existing CS IG space and overall in the
Internet civil society community as a whole, we expect that Inet will
respond accordingly and include our nominations alongside those of CC:CS in
the determination of their appointments and other actions.

 

As well, also as previously noted, a significant proportion of our
membership consists of academics/researchers globally working with or on
behalf of those such as marginalized communities in developed and developing
countries, indigenous peoples, older persons, and those with disabilities
among others to enable and empower them through the use of the Internet and
ICTs and therefore we will are undertaking a nomination process for
participation in all aspects of Inet to which academics/researchers are
being invited.

 

We are currently in the midst of these nomination processes and anticipate
these to have been successfully completed no later than the second week of
January.

 

(I would be pleased to provide additional details on any aspect of the above
as might be useful.)

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike

 

Please consider the CI Declaration: Internet for the Common Good:
Engagement, Empowerment and Justice
<http://cirn.wikispaces.com/An+Internet+for+the+Common+Good+-+Engagement%2C+
Empowerment%2C+and+Justice+for+All> . 

 

Individual
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dFNjZ2t
KVHpxUloyakFoWEhVTmdNZFE6MA>  or organizational endorsements
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?usp=drive_web&formkey=dERVUzg2
dllmcElGX3U0TkdFRVRkN3c6MA#gid=0>  are gratefully solicited.

 

From: Suzanne Woolf [mailto:suzworldwide at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 5:10 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: 'John Curran'; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

 

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/20131230/1f7f7cf0/attachment.html>