This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.

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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Dec 5 11:35:57 CET 2013


I believe there is the option for any group/org chair to specifically state
whether comment is on self or otherwise. Making a comment and indicating
"on behalf" will mean that the representative has put into consideration
the internal processes to warrant such move. If however a member of such
group thinks otherwise, then IMHO such objections should be raised within
the particular org/group community and not on 1Net
For me i don't see how 1Net will discredit any statement like that. It's
like claiming comments from the leader of a country house of assembly is
talking based on self when he did not indicate so. By default the initial
understanding will be speaking "in representation of the floor"

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
On 5 Dec 2013 11:12, "Roland Perry" <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message
> <CAMm+LwiqNZ7cNSsXhtSXL2Y0meQPSuS4paRiMbVJj1TA=ieRrw at mail.gmail.com>, at
> 16:28:42 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com>
> writes
> >> > The IETF and IAB Chairs of course act as leaders, but in general the
> >> >IETF doesn't elect people to speak for it.
> >>
> >> So why did they allow their names to be attached to a statement of this
> >> kind with attributions such as "Chair IAB|IETF"?
> >>
> >> At the very least it will be confusing to people who are not extremely
> >> well versed in IETF politics (which is of course "almost everyone").
> >>
> >> They will undoubtedly assume that their signature is backed by the
> >> organisations they chair, just as we assume that what the RIR and ISOC
> >> chiefs said was representing their organisations' view, and not just a
> >> personal opinion.
> >
> >The constraints Andrew raises are hardly unique to the IETF they apply
> >equally to the President of the United States.
> >
> >Even though the POTUS is elected to speak for the US in treaty
> >negotiations, any treaty must be ratified by the US Senate before it is
> >binding.
> >
> >It is generally understood that the only parties that can make such
> >commitments unilaterally are either essentially undemocratic or
> >inconsequential.
>
> I disagree. The leaders of organisations can, and do, make serious
> commitments which they have previously cleared with whatever/whoever
> comprises the decision-making process back at the ranch (which may of
> course be democratic, although democracy is somewhat over-rated at
> times). It's called "having a mandate".
> --
> Roland Perry
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131205/b88162f3/attachment.html 


More information about the I-coordination mailing list