This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com. 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?
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Thu Dec 5 12:11:00 CET 2013
I will not provide an opinion on the nuances of what attribution statements may have from other groups, but I thought it might be useful to lay out my understanding of how business is perceiving the role of the nominated representatives. As you can imagine business has the same issues as the other stakeholders in trying to understand how to agree on representatives from diverse sectors, geographies and issue interests. We also face the issue of volunteering for a black box exercise, because until we meet we are not sure of the related process or exact function of each of the groups being created. We also believe that the term representative, as in representative democracy, may be misleading. We do not see the Business reps as the final decision makers but rather as the liaisons who participate in meetings and the development of messages and exploration of ideas, but will consult with the broader stakeholder group related to positions going in and any decisions made related to drafts. We would foresee a process that provides some time for efficient consultations with broader memberships between draft iterations. The reality is that organizing and drafting is best done in smaller groups, but they must engage in a consultation and consensus process with the broader stakeholder group as positions develop. I hope that this view of the role of the representative may help make selection processes, imperfect as they may be, seem less onerous by having the necessary transparency and consultation to enable true multi-stakeholder participation.
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:36 AM
To: Roland Perry
Cc: i-coordination at nro.net
Subject: Re: [I-coordination] What is 1net to me?
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"
sent from Google nexus 4
On 5 Dec 2013 11:12, "Roland Perry" <HYPERLINK "mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com"roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
<CAMm+LwiqNZ7cNSsXhtSXL2Y0meQPSuS4paRiMbVJj1TA=HYPERLINK "mailto:ieRrw at mail.gmail.com"ieRrw at mail.gmail.com>, at
16:28:42 on Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker <HYPERLINK "mailto:hallam at gmail.com"hallam at gmail.com>
>> > 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
>It is generally understood that the only parties that can make such
>commitments unilaterally are either essentially undemocratic or
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".
I-coordination mailing list
HYPERLINK "mailto:I-coordination at nro.net"I-coordination at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination