[governance] SDOs and public input (Was: Reconstituting MAG

[jlfullsack]

Dear all

I'm following this very important thread and -despite I'm not an TCP/IP 
guru- I feel some basics are highlighted in this discussion such as the 
importance (the prerequisite) of infrastructure, and moreover its 
architecture, i.e. the global distribution of the "fisrt class nodes". Even 
this "hard" concepts are actual policy issues.
Remember where and how the SWIFT network was tapped and in whose interests 
this official act of piracy was done.

In its message Stephane wrote :
"Will the IGF do the same with ITU? It is a much more closed SDO (and
which heartily embraced the concept of Lawful Interception, meaning
Big Brother can rely on the ITU to put wiretapping provisions in all
its standards...)"

Quite right, Stephane : ITU is in the very heart of this issue. There was a 
revealing "radio silence" from the Geneva Tower during the SWIFT scandal, as 
there was during the ECHELON affair and other "Big Brother (US) ventures". 
This strange beheaviour should be addressed more strongly by civil society, 
and condemned accordingly. I'd just refer to the good job done by the 
Council of Europe and the European Parliament, whose well documented Reports 
demonstrated the dangers and responsibilities in both these "Information 
scandals".
Just one remark on the the ITU's closed character : if your (CS) 
organization is (very) rich, it can become a member of this UN Agency. Just 
put your money on the ITU desk and, depending on its amount, you'll be 
"sector member" or (if your cash is lower) an "associated member". This 
shows the actual difference between IETF (and other SDO) and the ITU in 
terms of closed constituencies. Conversely, it allows its bosses to claim 
the "openness" of the ITU and what's more its "multistakeholder character", 
in line whith the WSIS recommendations.
This means that "openness" may just be an affair of criteria ...

All the best

Jean-Louis Fullsack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer at internatif.org>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:38 AM
Subject: [governance] SDOs and public input (Was: Reconstituting MAG


> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 06:30:58PM +0900,
> Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote
> a message of 44 lines which said:
>
>> As for the IETF, firstly is is very difficult for non-engineers to
>> gain any status within the organisation.
>
> Well, this is certainly on purpose. It is a technical body. In the
> same way, it is quite difficult for someone who is not a lawyer to
> gain any status in a bar association...
>
>> merit is judged on the basis of familiarity with Unix, C and TCP/IP
>> networking.
>
> Many IETFers are quite unfamiliar with Unix or with C. As for TCP/IP
> knowledge, well, since the IETF authors TCP/IP, yes, it is a
> prerequisite.
>
>> Public policy experience counts for very little.
>
> You raise here an important point: public input on technical
> standards. That is a difficult question since input on technical
> standards must be technically informed (to be meaningful and useful)
> and since there is no clear channel to gather this public opinion
> (unless you engage in ICANN bluff such as public fora that are never
> read and have exactly zero consequences; at least the IETF does not
> pretend it listens to you).
>
> This is not specifically an IETF issue. Every SDO has the same
> problem. Most are very closed, even in theory (take ISO, for
> instance).
>
>> Secondly, it notoriously maintains the fiction that it is engaged in
>> a purely technical exercise,
>
> We agree that nothing is "purely technical".
>
>> and does not need to consult outside its membership for input on
>> policy questions.
>
> Again, who should be consulted? ICANN listens only to the US
> governement, to the IP holders and from time to time to the GAC.
>
>> The example that I always roll out is RFC 2804, the IETF's Policy on
>> Wiretapping (basically deciding that the IETF would not facilitate
>> the interception of data by LEAs in the design of its protocols).
>
> Yes, very good document.
>
>> One purpose of the IGF (as I see it) is to assess the IETF's deficit
>> of multi- stakeholder legitimacy, and to help to redress it through
>> its own recommendations.
>
> Will the IGF do the same with ITU? It is a much more closed SDO (and
> which heartily embraced the concept of Lawful Interception, meaning
> Big Brother can rely on the ITU to put wiretapping provisions in all
> its standards...)
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 


-- 
J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés.
Ce programme a supprimé12000 d'e-mails spam à ce jour.
Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails.
Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance