From the above I extract the roles of IoPA, as an overarching body.
- ecosystem service of Animation
- Guardian: defend the shared vision and values of the network, which are things that emerge from interaction of various stakeholders. The role of guardian of social and cultural assets is not to be confused with the messianic role of dictating vision and shared values.
- Mediation: keeping the peace within the community / network.
To be compatible with the participatory nature of the production process, the guardian and mediation roles must be exercised by implementing p2p or distributed measures. This is to be distinguished from benevolent dictatorship. The emphasis is always put on facilitation and coordination and the action is transferred to the network. For example, ostracizing a bad actor through peer pressure is preferred to banning the actor through platform moderation.
- Maintain infrastructure - designed and built by the community, to resemble the community, match its needs, compatible with the creation process.
In other words, IoPA ensures the homeostasis of the network, without intervening in its daily activities.
Referring to Governance, the IoPA overarching body should only make decisions related to ensuring the homeostasis of the network. Do we have a economic problem? Is the process of creation of a specific standard bugged down by lack of resources? Then this body should discuss methods to coordinate a network response to solve this problem. Do we have a social problem? Actors don’t adhere to a body of values? There is a recalcitrant actor? Then the body should discuss methods to coordinate a network response. Should this body take direct actions to ban a recalcitrant actor? As the custodian of the infrastructure (digital environment), only if the will of participants is expressed through a transparent and inclusive process the body can exert direct force (ban someone), and if peer pressure measures leading to self exclusion are not effective, for example.
Areas of work can have their own governance bodies only concerned with the creation process, compatible with the body of shared values, inline with the shared vision and the general strategy.
Other governance bodies can be created across areas of work, as needed, if clusters of work areas are required.
What is a member? I propose to call a member a participant individuals, which may act in self-interest or may represent the interests of organizations. Organizations can be listed in support of IoPA, but they cannot be granted membership status. This is practiced in the IP system (patenting): only individuals are considered inventors. They can transfer commercial rights to organizations, but they will be forever recognized as authors / inventors. The current status of corporations as moral persons is problematic, enough history already proves that. As we’re going through this transition towards a networked global society, it is wise to deal with individuals, to see organizations as more or less open networks, of individuals (see Verna Allee and her writings on value networks).