[discuss] CI case in itself was Re:   Representative Multistakeholder model validity
gurstein at gmail.com
Sun Jan 19 03:57:47 UTC 2014
There are several other associated lists but this is the main one.
From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:47 PM
To: 'Adam Peake'; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: RE: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re:   Representative
Multistakeholder model validity
Yes, and I've pointed to it several times on this list and on others.
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:40 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org; michael gurstein
Subject: Re: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re:   Representative
Multistakeholder model validity
A related question. Michael, about the community informatics group, is this
the archive of the group's mailing list
On Jan 19, 2014, at 6:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> > I hope that this answers your questions.
> It does answer the question I asled.
> Thank you.
> So, I conclude that
> a. /1net has already given you the pre-disposition you should expect
the list of nominees you just submitted an appeal on. As you know I am
among those who think the /1net leadership, pre-SC and now the /1net-sc, do
have the responsibility for dealing with your appeal. But the prior notice
that they were only going to accept nomination from certain sources was
probably a clue as to how they would react to a slate presented directly to
them once they gave it appropriate consideration.
> b. the names were not submitted to any other process.
> While other processes may not have sent the request for nominees far
wide, a statement that i think needs to be proven yet, I wonder did you and
the other Ig experienced people mentoring the CI through this process know
about the opportunities for getting CI members into the mix while there was
> Thanks again for your reply.
> On 18-Jan-14 16:14, michael gurstein wrote:
>> CI submitted its nominations to the br.cgi folks who told us to
>> submit these to 1net.
>> We submitted these nominations to 1net and were told that they were
>> only accepting nominations that were forwarded through CS: CC and
>> Our approach to CS: CC concerning involvement with their processes
>> including nominations was rebuffed. No request for nominations was
>> circulated outside of the 4 organizations which constitute the CS: CC.
>> The GigaNet process was evidently exclusive to GigaNet as no
>> information or request for nominations was, to my knowledge
>> circulated outside of the closed GigaNet list.
>> I hope that this answers your questions.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:49 PM
>> To: discuss at 1net.org
>> Subject: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re:   Representative
>> Multistakeholder model validity
>> (all cc dropped)
>> I have one question on all of this, did CI present its candidate list
>> to any other processes? I have noticed in these processes that
>> various people and groups submitted the same names to different
>> processes. So even if CI was holding out for either doing it own
>> thing to establish its footprint in the /1net movement or for the
>> invitation it did not get to be on the joint CS selection process,
>> did they make sure, given the uncertainty of their appeals, that
>> their candidates were also considered by Academia and the CS4 processes?
>> On 18-Jan-14 14 @gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for
>>> everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have
>>> those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to
>>> ponder and revise their understanding based on the information
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss