[governance] SDOs and public input (Was: Reconstituting MAG

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 06:30:58PM +0900,
 Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote 
 a message of 44 lines which said:

> As for the IETF, firstly is is very difficult for non-engineers to
> gain any status within the organisation.

Well, this is certainly on purpose. It is a technical body. In the
same way, it is quite difficult for someone who is not a lawyer to
gain any status in a bar association...

> merit is judged on the basis of familiarity with Unix, C and TCP/IP
> networking.

Many IETFers are quite unfamiliar with Unix or with C. As for TCP/IP
knowledge, well, since the IETF authors TCP/IP, yes, it is a
prerequisite.

> Public policy experience counts for very little.

You raise here an important point: public input on technical
standards. That is a difficult question since input on technical
standards must be technically informed (to be meaningful and useful)
and since there is no clear channel to gather this public opinion
(unless you engage in ICANN bluff such as public fora that are never
read and have exactly zero consequences; at least the IETF does not
pretend it listens to you).

This is not specifically an IETF issue. Every SDO has the same
problem. Most are very closed, even in theory (take ISO, for
instance).

> Secondly, it notoriously maintains the fiction that it is engaged in
> a purely technical exercise,

We agree that nothing is "purely technical".

> and does not need to consult outside its membership for input on
> policy questions.

Again, who should be consulted? ICANN listens only to the US
governement, to the IP holders and from time to time to the GAC. 

> The example that I always roll out is RFC 2804, the IETF's Policy on
> Wiretapping (basically deciding that the IETF would not facilitate
> the interception of data by LEAs in the design of its protocols).

Yes, very good document.

> One purpose of the IGF (as I see it) is to assess the IETF's deficit
> of multi- stakeholder legitimacy, and to help to redress it through
> its own recommendations.

Will the IGF do the same with ITU? It is a much more closed SDO (and
which heartily embraced the concept of Lawful Interception, meaning
Big Brother can rely on the ITU to put wiretapping provisions in all
its standards...)


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance