This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to firstname.lastname@example.org.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?
roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Fri Dec 6 09:02:42 CET 2013
<CAMm+LwjY3EzRZLv3=PTWPijswXQYy4prwXfrcpWdoAgbjsaJJw at mail.gmail.com>, at
21:55:00 on Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com>
>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".
>And nobody in any of the ISOC/IETF/IAB/ICANN etc. structures has such a
Someone in the ICANN structure appears to have a mandate to set up 1net.
>In fact the selection procedures are explicitly designed to
>stop that occurring.
Selection of what?
>It always irritates me when people speak of what 'Iran' or 'China' want
>as if there was absolute uniformity in political views.
Even "rough consensus" isn't absolute uniformity.
>The UK process is quite simple, Haig goes off to negotiate some treaty
>and then get the support of the government. If the government does not
>agree with what he agreed then Haig is sacked. Otherwise the government
>attempts to get the support of Parliament and if it does not there is a
>motion of no confidence and the government falls.
But Haig (and his advisers) know how far their mandate extends, and
won't over-reach it. So they don't get sacked and in any case almost all
votes of 'no confidence' (which arise in different circumstances to
those you describe) are won by the government.
>That does not seem terribly different from the Montevideo process. Russ
>and Jari negotiated the communique and then there was a discussion in
>IETF land. Nobody seemed particularly upset at what was done in their
>You seem to think that there should be some sort of definitive
>procedure. This is rather odd when the IETF is not really in control of
We could discuss the IETF's alleged lack of control all night I expect.
However, it's only one player, and 1net is only one forum, so it's a bit
>Nobody really knows how to change the Internet or why it suddenly
>decides to change. We invented blogs at CERN back in 1994 but they only
>really started to become a medium in 2000. The idea of social media was
>raised at the first Web conference, people tried various stuff
>repeatedly and then ten years later someone tries almost the same thing
>and suddenly we have Facebook.
Agreed about the way things evolve. I was involved in social networking
as long ago as 1986, although it didn't have that name of course.
Indeed, the networks upon which it was happening didn't even connect
their discussion platform to the Internet until about 1995.
More information about the I-coordination