[governance] User input to Internet architecture work

[Ian Peter]

I think from the various threads around IPv6 and user input into IETF etc
that we should begin to realize that there is a structural problem with
current Internet governance.

As Stephane points out, there is no clear avenue for user input and this is
needed sometimes. As Phil points out, there is no co-ordinated information
source for IPv6 information for managers and decision makers trying to
understand the implications and issues involved in transition. As Carlos
points out, there are lots of people who want this information in plain
language. And, as Suresh points out, communication of the issues with non
technical people is difficult.

In my professional life, I have spent much of the last fifteen years working
with governments and large corporations managing projects and large scale IT
rollouts, managing technical staff and acting as a conduit between technical
staff and organizational management. I've also often advised organizations
on how to structure their governance in information and knowledge management
areas. There is quite a lot of theory here, a lot of lessons learnt from
massive IT failures, and a lot of literature. As I do not expect every
participant here to learn management theory to understand the nature of the
problem (just as I reject the concept that everyone here needs to undertake
technical courses to talk about IPv6) let me summarise.

Technical-only co-ordination without appropriate overview governance
structures is a known problem. I've actually been surprised that people
would talk about it as a plus in the context of Internet governance. People
who wish to explore this further could google Klinger Cohen Act, to find out
how long ago the US government actually legislated to ensure the concept did
not exist in IT governance in the US bureaucracy.

As regards governance; governance structures are recommended to ensure that
technical groups report into more general management areas where all
business stakeholders are represented. As well, it is usually recommended
that for large scale activities that affect end users, project governance
structures be set up that include representatives of all affected bodies to
ensure there concerns and requirements are heard and their co-operation is
obtained to facilitate the organizational change necessary. 

Those responsible for managing the change - project teams - include a mix of
technical and non technical skills, because both are needed to bring about a
smooth transition. Project Managers sit in the middle of all of this, making
sure that all stakeholders understand the technical issues, and making sure
the approach to implementation takes into account all of the issues and
risks inherent in smooth adoption. It's a well developed science with a lot
of tried and true processes and standardized approaches. The major cause of
failures in technical projects is not technical complexity, but lack of an
appropriate implementation strategy to ensure that the organizational change
aspects are thought through and dealt with. So large projects almost always
include change management and communication specialists. 

Now this of course doesn't translate exactly into Internet governance
because we are talking about something more loosely associated. But I think
what does translate is:

Structures need to evolve to allow clear processes for stakeholder input
from all groups into major decisions, directions, and activities.

ICANN has evolved to do this in its small area of operation, in other areas
we don't yet have structures and processes in place to achieve this. And
until we do a whole lot of things will not be as effective as they should
be.

This is of course the problem of having no-one in charge in a whole lot of
critical areas. That is what I thought an Internet Governance Forum might
begin to address, and hopefully will in the near future.



Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1308 - Release Date: 03/03/2008
10:01
 

____________________________________________________________
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