[discuss] Should the 1net discussion be split into two (or more) lists?

[Nigel Hickson]

George 

Good evening; I agree there is merit in some form of separation on process
and policy substance grounds; while recognising both important

Best

Nigel 

From:  George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
Date:  Sunday, January 19, 2014 7:07 AM
To:  1Net List <discuss at 1net.org>
Subject:  [discuss] Should the 1net discussion be split into two (or more)
lists?

To the 1net list discussants and to the 1net steering committee,

The large number of contributions to this list regarding representation
issues convince me that enough people who contribute consider it to be
really important.  Similarly, there have been a number of postings to this
list regarding Internet governance issues without regard to representation
that this seems important to a significant subgroup of us also.

These issues have some overlap, but may be better dealt with separately
rather than in the current commingled manner.  So I propose considering to
split this list into two lists:


1net-representation will be devoted to issues of representation that concern
us.  It should be oriented toward the makeup of 1net and other groups that
claim to focus on Internet governance issues.  It should focus on past,
existing and future disputes regarding misrepresentation by and within
stakeholder groups.  It should explore theories of political representation,
participative democracy, and methods to measure balanced representation.  It
should not concern itself with any technical issues, any administrative
issues, or any issues of substance in Internet governance except to the
extent that they concern themselves with representational components.


1-net solutions will be devoted to the issues in Internet governance that
concern us.  It should be oriented to problem statements, descriptions of
possible solutions, technical assessments, and implications of proposed
modifications in the structure and distribution of responsibilities within
the Internet administrative and technical ecosystem.  Arguments should be
evidence-based to the extent possible.  Contributions should be made in an
individual capacity, and discussions should be based upon the merit of ideas
presented.  It should not concern itself with issues of representation on
Internet governance groups, or political philosophy except to the extent
that representational issues impact upon specific technical and
administrative issues n an important way.  Other issues of representation
should be sent to the 1net-representation list for discussion.


There may well be other ways to subdivide this list into components that
promise to be able to make better progress in resolving the set of issues
that bring us together here.


When I first thought to suggest this, I thought of it as a way of using
humor to highlight the wanderings of topics on the list and the seeming
inability of the discussion to come to convergence and agree on anything.
Now, the more I think of it, perhaps the suggestion also deserves
consideration as a serious one.

George


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140119/b9cc0c58/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140119/b9cc0c58/smime-0001.p7s>