This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit

[I-coordination] What is 1net to me?

Klaus Stoll kdrstoll at
Mon Dec 2 10:32:29 CET 2013

Dear Paul, Dear All

Thanks Paul for starting this discussion threat and all those who 
replied. Paul's article received such a response simply by it's virtue 
that it tried to get some order into the chaos, Thanks again Paul, and 
as my first comment I would like to say that we need some clarity about 

If I read all the emails it seems to be a top down, (I *group), effort, 
with the _potential_ to create a "bottom up" "movement". Basicaly we are 
told, as Fadi did during the famous 7.00 am Wednesday meeting, and I use 
my own words here "this is it, run with it".

Then there is the mysterious steering committee which seems to have the 
huge potential to add substantially to the "Internet's ironic need to 
travel!",. (Thanks Avri, I will never forget this one). My suggestion is 
to give this 800 pound gorilla in the room his freedom and forget it. 
Like many Gorillas, it will seldom fly! (and if it flies, it has to 
answer the question if it has the right and legitimacy to do so).

Looks like another fine mess we are in. Here some thoughts that might 
get some constructive outcomes going.

Can we stop calling it a "movement", ya basta!. Movements happen, they 
are not created or enabled top down by a group how ever good meaning.

Most of the discussion seems to be about the role and position of 
existing Internet Governance groups and organizations. I think this is 
short sighted because we try to fix a car with the parts that are 
already broken. What we need is a process of: a) reevaluation, b) 
recreation, and c) assembly.

Maybe it would be a good idea to forget Brazil meetings, steering 
committee and so on. We are going into these discussions with the same 
old structures, interests and instruments to got us stuck in the first 
place. We need new answers and maybe it is better to simply start using 
this list to start discussing fundamental questions like: "What kind of 
multi stakeholderism do we need today and how will it create itself?", 
How can the obsolete understanding of sovereignty by Nation States be 
reformed and changes so that it actually fits into a digital world?", 
What does multi-lateral, multi-stakeholder, cyber security and so on 
actually means in our reality today?. If we answer these questions, and 
many other better ones, we have a chance to rebuild. May I dare to 
suggest that we set up a set of working group discussion groups, (maybe 
loosely following the ICANN working group principles),  that come up 
with some answers. We can then start recreate worn out tools as the WSIS 
and IGF besides others in order to end up we a re-assembled IG structure 
that might serve us for a few years more until next time the mess 
becomes to large to feel comfortable.

I hear some of you say, " but we have enough trouble filling existing 
working groups!". Yes you are right. The reason is that IG is suffering 
from something that I would like to call "sectoral blindness". Do you 
really think that this group and the I* and the whole ICANN IG based 
ecosystem even begins to start to represent also those who are affected, 
evolved and engaged. There are many outside that you do not see and that 
feel the pain just as much as we, if not more, as the usually feel more 
powerless and frustrated . Just look at the group that is dear to my 
heart the I-Engage institute, , there are dozens of 
groups like this around, and in order to make it work we need to find an 
instrument to make a joint discussion and knowledge exchange happen. It 
can be done, there just needs to be concious efford to look over our fences.

So again, my simple straight forward proposal is:

1). Let's think about the questions we need answers. (Forget existing 
power structures for the moment)
2). Let's come up, if necessary contradictory, answers in structured, 
topic and time limited working groups, that include those beyond the 
"usual candidates"
3.) Working groups should not just look at the answers but also how they 
can be implemented.
4.) Joint implementation and evaluation.

That is it very, very roughly. If you think it makes sense, if you think 
its rubbish, if you think it needs tweaking, let's hear it.

Who dares to formulate some draft questions and put them out here to try?

I end with putting my time where my mouth/keyboard is by volunteering 
myself to make something along these lines happen. Who is with me?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the I-coordination mailing list