<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>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<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><OL><LI><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>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.
</SPAN></FONT><LI><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>The unusual Irish lottery Nomcom selection process (copied to IGF from IETF). This egalitarian process allows the Irish lottery to choose those who choose our representatives. In the IGF experience, it has thrown up a Jeffrey Williams to a Nomcom and more than one Nomcom where the majority of members selected by the lottery did not participate meaningfully. I don’t’ know whether IETF has had any similar issues but this is another aspect I would deal with with caution in any other organisation. I hope my country never adopts it for selecting high court judges....
</SPAN></FONT><LI><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>The RFC (Request for Comments) process. This to my knowledge is an IETF invention, and my preliminary evaluation is that it is a good one and perhaps scaleable to other organisations and structures. It provides a semi formal process for evaluation of ideas and determining which are worth pursuing. Everyone can throw up ideas for consideration. Probably a bit better than the suggestion box and probably useful in quite a few organisational settings. Worth looking at anyway.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></OL><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
I am sure there are other operational aspects worth looking at and I am sure we can learn from some of them. I am equally sure that there are others which are past their use-by date. <BR>
<BR>
Ian Peter<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"><B>From: </B>Andrea Glorioso <<a href="andrea@digitalpolicy.it">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>><BR>
<B>Reply-To: </B><<a href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>, Andrea Glorioso <<a href="andrea@digitalpolicy.it">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Thu, 24 May 2012 09:43:40 +0200<BR>
<B>To: </B><<a href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>, Avri Doria <<a href="avri@ella.com">avri@ella.com</a>><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics)<BR>
<BR>
Dear Avri, dear all,<BR>
<BR>
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="avri@ella.com">avri@ella.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
On 23 May 2012, at 11:13, Andrea Glorioso wrote:<BR>
<BR>
I found your example-ad-absurdum with acronyms to be LOL though not quite ROTFL.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
Well, asking a eurocrat to be entertaining is a bit like asking pigs to fly.. I do what I can. :)<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>I think that finding reasonable ways, perhaps metrics, of analyzing the usefulness of a particular MPD model for a particular purpose is indeed a good task. In looking at organization, and in terms of analyzing them, I know that I naturally apply several criteria in deciding whether various aspects of a model can be reasonably applied to a solution in another problem space. This is, in fact a very similar process I use to decide whether a protocol can be repurposed* or whether components of that protocol can be 'borrowed'.<BR>
<BR>
So for the IETF, I think the exercise would involve breaking down the IETF into some of its component parts, e.g. rough consensus, working groups, standard development process, types of appeal mechanism, leadership progression, capacity building mechanisms, methods of picking leaders and their term limits, forms of communication, relationship of leadership to the body politic etc... Some of these are more effective than others and some of these are mechanisms are useful in other organizations. I don't think any thinks that the IETF, or any other organization, is the one size fits all pattern for all other organizations, it is just that in creating other forms of MPD I think it offers some good clue.<BR>
<BR>
The exercise might also include a look at the mission, (In the IETF case part of which in my own words) is to act as a steward to the internet by designing and maintaining protocols that allow the Internet to continue to grow according to the Internet's generative nature, and the degree to which it meets that mission. Has the IETF succeeded in producing and maintaing protocols that have allowed the internet to thrive and grow? Is there perhaps another model we can compare its success to: how does it compare to the ITU, W3C, IEEE, ETSI ... and others (in some cases perhaps better/worse than others). We can apply this same type of analysis to any organization from the EC to the local rugby or knitting society)<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> <BR>
The list of critera you enumerate are certainly a good start and perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me could borrow further insights from political economy, institutional studies and/or business studies, which focus a lot on the nature of organisations, what makes them "succesful", etc. The works of Milton Mueller and Laura DeNardis is also a good reference in my view.<BR>
<BR>
I have already raised a number of questions on "rought consensus" in my reply to Norbert Bollow. Speaking of whom, I know Norbert has been leading a very interesting exercise on mapping the IG space in terms of organisations etc. I admit I still have to go through the interim results of this effort, but I wonder whether the IGC could not come up/propose some metrics/criteria at least to "categorise" ("evaluate" is a much more complex process) IG organisations. Perhaps this work could be based on the seminal mapping already performed by the APC.<BR>
<BR>
One drawback I find in your draft proposal, Avri, is that you seem to focus on standards-setting organisations. On the other hand, my interest - and I would argue, that of a number of colleagues in public service - is the extent to which the characteristics/methods of Internet-focused standards-setting organisations, such as W3C and IETF, can be extended to other areas of life and political activity. This seemed to me to be the proposition of at least Norbert Bollow.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>As for the degree for how objective these metrics can be, that would probably involve another spirited discussion on the epistemological balance between subjectivity and objectivity or human psychological ability to distinguish between the two. I would also bring us into discussion of well formed theories of evidence, both anecdotal and statistical.<BR>
<BR>
But I have some work I really should do.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
I am in the position - not sure whether it's fortunate or not - that this kind of discussions are exactly (part of) my job at the European Commission. So, even if I speak on this list purely on a personal basis (unless I say otherwise by prefixing emails with the golden seal of the European Commission) I will certainly be more than interested in continuing this exchange.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.<BR>
Twitter: @andreaglorioso<BR>
Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso">https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso</a><BR>
LinkedIn: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro">http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro</a><BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
<a href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><BR>
To be removed from the list, visit:<BR>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><BR>
<BR>
For all other list information and functions, see:<BR>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><BR>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<BR>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><BR>
<BR>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>