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

[Adam Peake]

Center for Democracy and Technology had a project on this kind of 
thing for a while. Info at <http://www.cdt.org/standards/>

I believe the policy/lawyers from CDT had computer/tech backgrounds, 
which helped, but they were at the IETF to look at issues from a 
policy perspective.  Best I can remember of how CDT described their 
experience was they were looked at oddly at first, but once seen to 
be serious and had attended a couple of meetings and the WGs they 
were interested in, they were themselves taken seriously. They gained 
"status" by showing up and doing work. Perhaps a problem it revealed 
is that you had to attend a few meetings (time and money involved) 
before you were in the trusted group.  I've heard telecom people say 
this is a problem with the IETF, and doesn't happen to the same 
extent in (for example) ITU and ETSI tech standards groups where 
contributions of newcomers are accepted more quickly (they benefit 
from the trust associated with their organization perhaps?)  I can 
imagine the IETF may be harder to "penetrate" for people with less 
resources. Perhaps harder for people from developing countries.

All above relies on my poor memory and it's getting late... and it 
has little to do with the consultation!

Adam




At 10:58 PM +0900 2/13/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>On 13/02/2008, at 7:38 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>>>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...
>
>That is a good point, because in fact the International Bar 
>Association's International Code of Ethics is a form of private or 
>transnational law with public policy ramifications, as are other 
>forms of private ordering such as the law-like rules of stock 
>markets and financial networks such as Visa.  There are grounds to 
>argue for greater democratic accountability in how such private law 
>is developed.
>
>>This is not specifically an IETF issue. Every SDO has the same
>>problem. Most are very closed, even in theory (take ISO, for
>>instance).
>
>I certainly agree.
>
>>>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.
>
>Ideally, the IGF is an open forum for the very reason that anyone 
>who is impacted and can demonstrate by rational argument that this 
>is so, can have a hand in shaping policy on the issues that impact 
>them.
>
>>>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...)
>
>If by "will" you mean "should", then most assuredly, yes.  If you 
>mean "will", then not in my lifetime, probably.
>
>--
>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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

____________________________________________________________
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