<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
Thanks for these well considered insights.<br>
<br>
2 things, and a bit.<br>
<br>
Luxury & Innovation<br>
In Capitalist innovation dynamics, luxury has historically played a
key role. So on the technical mission, there is need to consider the
market and social, and realist, dynamics, of what these groups do.
In other words, great leeway is needed in some sense. But in order
to do this, as much is novel and path dependent, the institutional
framework that makes this happen is critical to success, a more
pragmatic if it ain't broke than we are used too ;) For the techies
it <i>is</i> more than just a possessiveness of their area of
expertise, perhaps it is a price paid for specialisation. While
design is typically in the creators hand, we do know that Microsoft
(ab)used its Windows market dominance and integrated Internet
Explorer into its operating system design (after Bill reportedly did
not anticipate the growth of the net,was laggard on browsers), even
though other technical options were imminently possible, and earned
some anti-trust ire for it. So imho there is a need for luxury, with
balance with innovation dynamics as competition authorities already
know, but they too are permissive in some sense. <br>
<br>
Institutional<br>
JK Galbraith argued that what made the economic system so effective
was to get people into a firm to cooperate. Entrepreneurially
coordinating inputs of various skills (finance, marketing, sales
design, engineering, info sys etc) so as to produce outcomes
equivalent to what in earlier years individual geniuses like Edison
did. Most things are governance by committee. Having all the <i>elements</i>
present made the process more robust. The nub of your point for me
points to, by <i>restricting the skill</i>s brought to bear on the
project <i>it increases the risks </i>to success, So from a purely
procedural point of view tendencies to "restriction" is worrying.<br>
<br>
Of course if one is of the persuasion that there is clear boundary
between technical and public interest, then this issue is moot (but
with increasing complexity even ICANN is dealing more with
Intellectual Property, something we have been advised here has
naught to do with IG). <br>
<br>
If, howver, one does feel there is a regulatory function in <i>some
</i>of the technical (as Lessig, who has received contemptuous
consideration on this list, I think) then the lack of a procedural
measure smacks of something rather unbecoming. As it is not a
typical technical process, not even of the private sector (given the
market orientation of some of the views). Of course if one believes
that technology is/can be a social construction (e.g. why we don't
just leave nuclear power stations to be run by Homer Simpson) then
the imperative for this procedure is rather important, as you
similarly recommend.<o:p></o:p><br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
On 2013/03/29 09:22 PM, michael gurstein wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:005601ce2cb2$c4716650$4d5432f0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I must say that I'm disappointed, not with not being selected for the
Working Group, that's the way those things go, but rather at the way in
which the discussion went, or rather didn't go.
I'm disappointed at the simple lack of courtesy on the part of the
representative of the T/A group in not acknowledging and apologizing for the
incorrect personal attack that was made on me in the course of the
discussion.
But mostly I'm disappointed in the lack of any clear articulation of
precisely what the "Technical Community" sees as their role and values in
relation to "Enhanced Cooperation" or in other terms the institutional
architecture for the "governance" of the Internet.
Since they (or at least their self-selected spokespersons on this list) seem
unable or unwilling to go beyond a pingpong lack of diplomacy perhaps I
could suggest that the role of the larger "Technical Community" is in fact,
a necessary and very significant one which I personally would support as a
necessary contribution to any discussion of Enhanced Cooperation--that is
they are the "stewards" of the effective functioning and future deployment
of the Internet in support of the myriad functions and services now being
built on that platform.
I personally recognize the need for such "stewards"--every one of the
functions that I have undertaken on the Internet have had at some point and
to a greater or lesser extent, to rely on the skill and experience of such
stewards to ensure that I was able to do on the Internet what I wanted to
do.... And I'm quite sure that we have all had the exact same experience.
And similarly I have on occasion been warned off from doing things that I
wanted to do because it wasn't in the longer term technical interests of the
overall mission that I was attempting to pursue.
But there is the "rub"... So long as it was clear that the ultimate arbiter
in any decision concerning technical areas, as for other areas, was the
longer term organizational/social "mission" then things were fine, but
if/when there was a dispute between let's say technical efficiency or
technical elegance and getting down and dirty and accomplishing the mission
that we had agreed was the central focus of our activities then the
technical stewards needed to give way and conform to the overall
organizational/social mission that we were pursuing.
What I was hoping to hear from the "technical community" acting as
"stewards" of the overall technical integrity of the Internet was some
statement concerning the overall mission for the Internet that they saw as
being what provided the direction for their technical stewardship.
Simply arguing for technical efficiency or effectiveness as a goal is
clearly insufficient in such a significant area of public impact as the
Internet. Nor, dare I say, is it sufficient to simply say the mission will
arise out of the interplay of "competitive" commercial (or multistakeholder
or other) forces given the clear historical and resource imbalances that the
various parties are bringing to those interactions.
What I would have expected/hoped to hear, and this would have provided a
very interesting and useful basis for the discussion that Avri is asking
for, is that the Technical Community are acting in their technical capacity
as "stewards" of the Internet in support of the global public good i.e. an
Internet that serves the interests of us all, the Internet that we want to
build for ourselves and our children.
That would and hopefully still can provide the basis for a very useful
discussion/process where we as a community and including many many others
can work together to attempt to define and detail what we mean by the global
public good in this sphere as we have in other areas, and how that
definition and detailing of the global public good/the Internet for us all
can best be realized both at the level of the technical platform as well as
in the range of activities and services that are being built on top of this
platform.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:58 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group
on Enhanced Cooperation
hi,
I am confused. What windy rat hole have we gotten ourselves stuck in? And
while comparative subsidiarity is interesting, I do not see the positive
result all of this will have.
As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the
choice, what is it this group thinks is important? I would really like to
hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done?
avri
PS: And if that topic isn't appealing, how about: what do people think
about the 200+ ideas for workshops submitted to the IGF? What should the
MAG do next? I am sure that those we have put forward for the MAG and the
MAG-to-be, would be interested in our views.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>