On Monday, December 17, 2012 10:47:19 PM UTC-8, David Ascher wrote: > On 2012-12-19, at 4:15 PM, Mitchell Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > I'm proposing we create an Internet Public Policy Module, as described > > below. I'm also proposing the Module Owner be Harvey Anderson. Harvey's > > been leading the global side of our public policy issues for a while now. > > Having a Module notes this, and also makes it easier to know where to go > > for policy topics. > > > > > > For now, I've proposed this newsgroup as the discussion point, but I'm not > > sure that's right. Perhaps a new discussion forum would be better. > > > > My belief is that this group (which I think is an excellent idea) will draw > in passionate and talented people who are deeply committed to a better > internet, but not _that_ interested in Mozilla's internal policy discussions. > > > > > Thinking about the discussion that happened in the past on issues from ITU to > COPPA, I doubt the membership of this group is the right "default" audience. > I believe having to "join" an internet policy discussion would make it easier > for people to seek out background information and start with a learning > stance. > > > > If Harvey in particular agrees, we should probably create a bespoke place of > discussion (both discussion forum & bugzilla component). > > > > I also wonder whether influencing public policy is something that, possibly > controversially, sometimes will need a non-public space to discuss possible > actions. In a somewhat paradoxical way, making it possible for the Internet > Public Policy Module to have private conversations may make it easier for > Harvey et peers to effectively collect the input of a broader set of informed > contributors. Whether or not there's a secondary semi-private group, I'm > sure Harvey will encourage people who have ideas that shouldn't be discussed > in public yet to reach out to him. > > > > --david
Thanks for kicking this off Mitchell. Should the proposal be adopted, I hope to do it justice. The part I'm excited about the most is developing a global cabal of folks who have domain and regional expertise who can help Mozilla calibrate when to step in, how deep to go, and when to let it go. All of this filtered against our mission and providing a differential input. To do this I envision both Mozilla voices who just care and some set of domain experts that may participate at various times depending on the issue. For example, folks deep in copyright often don't have a sufficient background in antitrust. Similarly, antitrust expertise doesn't necessarily mean you're knowledgeable about open Internet issues. Another characteristic at work here is that the issues we're addressing don't live in a vacuum, and rarely are they totally new. There's history behind them, players who've been working for years to make policy changes, and a host of commercial, consumer and state interes ts that may be driving current initiatives. While we may know the heading and direction, those domain experts usually know the background and can help us navigate the path. Regarding the governance posts in general, I concur with David. It's hit or miss with governance, but we use it because its the best we have for now. During the SOPA and Internet blackout campaign, we developed an email list where we discussed current events, next steps, issues, and it was pretty effective. Anyone could join the list but everyone knew who was on the list. I wonder if we could we use something like that as a tool in addition to other methods like a wiki to hold static information, and a governance forum to manage general communications and capture new issues as well. Also interested in other ideas and tools that could work. /hja _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
