<!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><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Avri,<BR><BR>To be clear... Your original position
was ``I think that the IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming
something a standard is part of their accountability story. First they
code and prove that something works before making it a proposed standard, then
they test in the real world on the real Internet and fix it and call it a draft
standard, and only when it becomes fully functional and mainstream in the world
does it become a full standard.``<BR><BR>That is that somehow a code (law?) is
formulated (how, and by whom, and with what process, with what
``accountability``?); then it is ``proven that it works`` (proven to whom, by
what criteria, by what process, by what ``accountability``); then it
becomes a ``proposed standard`` (fledgling law?) which is ```tested in the real
world``, (who does the ``testing``, who are the ``test`` subjects (do they get
to have ``informed consent``), what are the criteria of the tests, how are the
results of the ``tests`` evaluated and so on); ``and only when it becomes fully
functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard``
(presumably you mean law here) (what is the process for having the law become
``fully functional`` and ``mainstream`` or rather what does a law look like
that isn`t ``fully functional`` and ``mainstream``?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>I compeletely agree with the need for much more
open<U> and inclusive</U> (and bottom up--``community informatics`` based
:)`processes of policy and law making (BTW the folks who advocate
strongest for ``open processes`` usually leave out the second
part i.e. ``and inclusive``) but in the formulation you keep
pressing forward in this discussion all I see is a quite bizarre set of
likely scenarios in the real world.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I agree with the formulation by Parminder in his
address to the Working Group i.e. to separate out the technical and the
non-technical aspects of policy making with an IETF process perhaps being the
appropriate one for the technical--I have no opinion (or experience) on that...
Also, I`ve suggested what I think is a very interesting way of approaching the
non-technical areas (that which is emerging from the Open Government Partnership
Process) and in earlier emails I`ve indicated some of the reasons why I think
such an approach might be relevant here.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I see no particular reason apart from proximity to go
with an IETF approach and certainly I`ve seen no convincing arguments in that
direction (apart from faith in its effectiveness in other, quite different
spheres... I agree with the need for moving forward and pragmatically with
approaches to policy making but one of the things I do know (also as a former
student of Philosophy) where you end up generally is determined by where you
start and so I think it is not unimportant that we be quite clear and somewhat
dispassionate on the matters which we are now discussing.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Best,</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>M</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2> <BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [<A
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria<BR>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:05 AM, <BR>To:
IGC<BR>Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re:
reality check on economics)<BR><BR><BR><BR>On 25 May 2012, at 01:35, michael
gurstein wrote:<BR><BR>> Governments have enough problems formulating and
implementing policy<BR>> so as to accomplish what they are attempting to
accomplish without<BR>> subjecting the public to half baked ideas as a matter
of principle.<BR><BR>What? Governments are forever subjecting us to half
baked ideas and calling them policy/law.<BR><BR>I really am pleased that now a
few offices in a few governments are deciding to vet their ideas with the public
first. I prefer that the first time I see a half baked idea it is not as a
law or regualtion I have to obey.<BR><BR>><BR>> Quite honestly I can`t
imagine how what you are suggesting would work<BR>> in the real
(non-technical) world, which is the reason I was so<BR>> interested in how
you envisaged this being actually practically<BR>> implemented in an existing
world of governmental or more specifically<BR>> inter-governmental (or
inter-governmental/multistakeholder) policy<BR>> making.<BR><BR>I think I was
pretty clear about how it would work. I think we are back to the same old
problem. You think that the social issues are so much more complex and
that people have a a greater diversity of views in IG than they do in Internet
technology. And this is just not the case as every technical issue also
has its social components, its impact analysis and a myriad of ways in which it
can be approached (tradeoffs) beyond the simple bits, bytes and framework
definition language.<BR><BR>A good, but curmudgeony, friend of mine has
questioned (off-list) whether these constant recursions of the oversight versus
self-governed discussion on the IGC aren't a waste of time. I
obviously don't think they are. But whenever one of my friends has such an
opinion, I search for the thread that will give me the clue to how we can both
be right. And as so often happens, found the thread in Ostrom's Governing
the Commons and her explanation of self-organized and self governed CPR (common
pool resources):<BR><BR>"<BR>But until a theoretical explanation - based on
human choice - for self organized and self governed enterprises is fully
developed and accepted, major policy decisions will continue to be undertaken
with a presumption that individuals cannot organize themselves and always need
to be organized by external authorities " (location 452 in the ebook)<BR><BR>And
this brings me back to what convinces people. While I was trained as
philosopher, i came out as one of the absolute relativists - most all of the
philosophers made sense given their perspective and situation within a
cultural-political time and place and the only thing I could be sure was the
relative truth of what they had to say, most any philosopher is convincing if
you put yourself in their shoes or sandals. I ended up working as an
engineer for most of career, because I found I could believe in what could be
built*. And after 20+ years of working with structures like the IETF, I
beleive I have pragmatically seen them work. I have also seen how the
principles and structures that are used in one area successfully can also be
used successfully, with variation, in other situations**. I have seen how
IETF organizational tools can be used elsewhere to solve other organizational
problems. For me that historical precedent is enough to tell me that these
tools are worth considering and experimenting with in the current IG problem
area.<BR><BR>Other people, as Ostrom says, need a theoretical framework that
convinces them. Some others need to see a complete and probable narrative for
how it might work work out (i.e. the thought experiment style of
investigation). So while I say lets just get to work, gather a number of
adequately inclined stakeholders into an open WG with a charter from the IGF and
start working on the problem, instead of jawboning about what might or might not
be possible. This would not preclude others from searching out other
solutions with other techniques, or theoreticians from coming up with the theory
on what the perfect organizational structure for IG might be or thought
experimentalists from thinking hard.<BR><BR>BTW some the references for the
US*** process on consumer rights can be found at:<BR><BR>Policy stmt: <A
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf">http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf</A>
lots of stuff in there on how they are organizing it Moving forward by ntia: <A
href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/moving-forward-consumer-privacy-bill-rights">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/moving-forward-consumer-privacy-bill-rights</A><BR>The
request for comments (closed): <A
href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/2012/multistakeholder-process-develop-consumer-data-privacy-codes-conduct">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/2012/multistakeholder-process-develop-consumer-data-privacy-codes-conduct</A><BR><BR>avri<BR><BR>*
(So I guess I am a pragmatic absolute relativist)<BR>** (ok so maybe I am a
pragmatic absolute relativist who tends towards structuralism, for some
definition of these terms)<BR>*** yeah, yeah, the US is ... and nothing they say
is ... I know all of that and for some definition of ... have said it
myself at time.<BR></P></FONT></BODY></HTML>