<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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>
</body>
</html>