<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16443"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=721261902-25052012><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial>And I`m still waiting for Bill to answer my
questions...</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=721261902-25052012></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><SPAN class=721261902-25052012>
<DIV><SPAN class=886501507-21052012><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2><EM>I couldn't find any references to </EM><SPAN
class=721261902-25052012> <EM>...</EM> </SPAN><EM> Pakistan or Iran
as specific supporters of "an appropriate, democratic and participative
multilateral body.'" with or without the terms "appropriate" or
"participative". Perhaps</EM><SPAN
class=721261902-25052012> <EM> ...</EM> </SPAN><EM> you could
provide the specifics which you appear to be quoting.</EM><SPAN
class=721261902-25052012> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=886501507-21052012><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2><SPAN
class=721261902-25052012> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=886501507-21052012><EM></EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=886501507-21052012><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2><EM>Also, am I correct in understanding you to be asserting that
indicating a support for "oversight" by </EM><EM>"an appropriate, democratic
and participative multilateral body'" is synonomous with taking a position for
"inter-governmental control over CIR".</EM>
</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=721261902-25052012></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=721261902-25052012><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial>M</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=721261902-25052012> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=721261902-25052012> </SPAN>-----Original
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Guru
????<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:26 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance]
Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on
economics)<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT><BR>On Friday 25 May 2012 04:00 AM, Avri
Doria wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:D91B3D83-7A3B-4897-BA4C-8FEDCAC58ECB@ella.com
type="cite"><PRE wrap="">On 24 May 2012, at 17:42, Ian Peter wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap="">When looking at IETF its probably also worth looking at some of its more eccentric processes and structures and determining whether these have ongoing value and/or scaleability. These would include
• Lack of any formal membership structure (anyone can participate). This also leads to accountability issues – wheras governments are accountable to their citizens, and companies to their shareholders, it’s not clear who IETF is accountable to seeing it has no formal membership structure. Tnis lack of accountability also leads to no formal review or performance evaluation processes – which in turn can lead to other problems.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap="">People do not need to be members of something to participate.
The leadership is accountable to the participants
I have been a participant since the late 80's, sometime just via email and sometimes with the ability to attend the meetings. I have always felt that the requirement of stewardship for the Internet was the most serious thing the IETF did. And they are most definitely accountable to the world for the fact that the Internet continues to grow and thrive, despite all the barriers that need to be routed around.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a very inadequate, and may i say, a poor measure of
accountability. <BR><BR>The maternal mortality rate in India has been
declining over last six decades, does this mean I can feel happy about the
performance of the Indian public health system?? (India has one of the highest
mmr in the world even today and several deaths are avoidable/inexcusable).
<BR><BR>Accountability is a critical necessity for any system which impacts
the public ... and as the Interent has deeper, wider impact on our lives in
numerous ways, we need governance structures that are transparent, accountable
and support wide participation (not just who can afford to be there) ... and
if we agree democracy is the best way to go about this, ask ourselves how we
can make the current IG more democratic.<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:D91B3D83-7A3B-4897-BA4C-8FEDCAC58ECB@ella.com
type="cite"><PRE wrap="">As for the IGC, which is indeed modeled on the IETF process, we require that people be members. I am not going to accuse any of our members, especially those who pay enough attention to volunteer when asked, of not participating in a meaningful way.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>Avri, <BR><BR>The issue is not of 'accusing members'....
the issue is - if members who voluntarily pick up a responsibility do not then
actually put in the required effort (and having been in Nomcoms, I agree with
Ian that there are serious participation issues), then <U>who pays the
price</U>??? does IGC not get the best selection of nominees after required
deliberations because of this. And what is the accountability process - of the
person to nomcom, of nomcom to igc, and of igc to IG....? Processes with such
poor accountability make me very uncomfortable...<BR><BR>The larger question
to ponder therefore is - Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and
lack of its accountability to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it
benefit disproportionately?<BR><BR>Andrea also more than once raised this
issue of accountability for decisions taken... I look forward to your response
to him and to Mike Gurstein's specific questions as well...
<BR><BR>thanks and regards,<BR>Guru<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>