[governance] RE: organizational orientation

[George Sadowsky]

Comments below,

At 11:59 PM -0400 5/28/08, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>
>>i know nothing
>>about the particular incident in question,
>
>A wiser man would refrain from comment, then.

So even if I don't know specific details but feel that I have 
something to add from a situation that I think is analogous, it would 
be wise to say nothing, right?

>  >IETF operates as a meritocracy.
>
>We aren't talking about IETF, George. We are talking about a public 
>policy list for ARIN (ARIN PPML). That list is not confined to 
>software programmers, network engineers or technical standards 
>developers, it is intended to be open to anyone and to address 
>public policy issues. ARIN staff spend a lot of time encouraging 
>people to join it and participate.

In retrospect, I should have made it clear that I was using an analogy.

Milton, my point, which I think you understood, was that generally if 
you know what you are talking about and talk sensibly within the 
context of IETF, or the RIRs, or other such similar bodies, then your 
opinions are treated with some respect.  It's certainly true that 
there are people who are mercurial and who take offense without 
offense being given, and Randy is known to have a shorter temper than 
others.  That's an unfortunate fact of life on this planet.  Perhaps 
there are some people like that on this list also.

>  >anyone can register for and attend an IETF meeting. 
>>it doesn't matter where you are from, who you work
>>for, what color, gender you are, or any other attribute
>>of your personal life and/or beliefs that have no bearing
>>on how well you think, contribute or perform.  Once
>>you are in one of its sessions, you are judged almost
>>completely by the ideas that you contribute to the
>>discussion.  If you don't know what you're talking
>>about, you'll be shut up.
>
>Two responses. First, the incident in question, which you admit you 
>know nothing about, proves that this is not always true.

Correct, but generalizing from one data point is not good practice.

>  Certain individuals like Bush, known for their emotional volatility 
>even among IETF-ers, may attempt to shut you up even if you do know 
>what you're talking about. Indeed, that kind of reaction sometimes 
>occurs precisely because you know more than them, or bring up an 
>issue they have not thought of. For a few individuals, that is a 
>situation they are not used to and don't adapt to well. 
>
>Public policy is a topic that can be approached more or less 
>scientifically, via the lens of law, history, economics and 
>political science. That is where my expertise lies, and Randy Bush 
>is in no position to assess it, much less dismiss it. But it is also 
>true that everyone has an opinion about politics and it stirs 
>passions. Network engineers are no more immune to prejudice and 
>emotion in that area than any other group.

... and no less immune than others also?

>  They may or may not understand the legal, social, political or 
>economic implications of what they are doing any better than an 
>ordinary person.

The reverse may also be true.  It's quite possible to be a scientist 
and an engineer and have a good grasp of and informed opinions about 
relevant public policy issues.

>  So from about 1996 on there has been a very severe cultural 
>adaptation process for the Internet technical developer community, 
>as they have been forced to come to terms

I don't think coercion is the best metaphor to use in terms of how 
the technical community has evolved.  Some people do have problems 
adjusting their world view in light of major shifts in the 
environment around them, but others, as you note, have had no problem 
comprehending the larger picture.  The list does not stop with David 
Clark (referenced below).

>  with politics and with new kinds of stakeholders and different 
>communities of knowledge, ranging from trademark lawyers to 
>entrepreneurs to free expression advocacy groups to democracy 
>advocates in internet governance. Some of them have managed to do 
>this relatively gracefully (e.g., David Clark) others have not.
>
>Second, among this technical group it is just not true that the 
>treatment you receive will be based entirely or even primarily on 
>the ideas you contribute, unless perhaps those ideas are about 
>computer science,

You paint a picture of very narrow interest here,  The I* community's 
interests, and its expertise, are considerably broader than computer 
science.  Perhaps you should get to know this community.  This 
ill-informed attitude is shared by too many people in the public 
policy sphere who argue that implementation and use of technology are 
too important to be left to technologists.  If you add the word 
"only" to that sentence, I would agree, not otherwise.

>  which no one here or on the Arin PPML is discussing. IETF and the 
>institutions that have emerged out of it have at their core a group 
>of predominantly American and European white males, all computer 
>scientists, who have known each other and worked together 
>intensively for 30 years. They form a tightly-knit social network. 
>They have their own culture. The treatment you will receive from 
>this group depends on who you know in that group and what they say 
>about you.

My evidence is contrary to this, and not only from my own point of 
view.  The best example I can think of is one of a lawyer from a 
rights advocacy group who started an IETF process to look at the 
privacy implications of the standards that were in the process of 
development.  He was welcomed and respected.

>  Full stop. Once you get on the bad side of one or two of these 
>people, it doesn't matter what you say or how much you know about 
>relevant issues, you will not be listened to. You are marked as an 
>outsider and an enemy and that's that.

I believe that this is an incorrect representation of the truth.

>  >In terms of treatment of individuals, this is one of
>  >the fairest, most egalitarian groups I know.
>
>That's because you're one of them, George. You are in no position to 
>comment on how people who are unknown to them, have different forms 
>of knowledge and speak a different conceptual language will be 
>treated.

Actually, I am not one of them, at least one of them at the NANOG, 
RIR or IETF level.  I have never been involved in IETF work, because 
at the level at which they operate. I don't consider myself technical 
at their level.

>  >It believes
>>in working toward results and agreeing on the basis of
>>rough consensus and running code.  To be fair, the operational
>>test of running code is a metric more easily available in
>>science and engineering disciplines than it is in many other
>>dimensions of human affairs but it is an ideal that
>>other groups might wish to take into account.
>
>This is the catechism, we've heard it before. As a profession of 
>your Faith I respect it.

My opinion about the IETF other institutions that manage critical 
Internet resources is not based on faith, but observation.  It is not 
a profession of faith, and I don't like your attempt demean it.

>  And I certainly respect the legacy technical and operational 
>accomplishments of that group. As you yourself sense, however, those 
>metrics do not apply easily to political, economic and public policy 
>contexts. And in your rush to defend the innate fairness of your 
>group,

Is this your profession of faith that I rushed?   Did you see me? 
Actually, I deliberated for awhile whether it was worth doing.  My 
fear was that I would be attacked for posting what I thought might 
have been an explanation   --  not a justification  --  for allegedly 
rude behavior by Randy.  And I guess my fear was justified.

>  you may have obscured the more important point Avri and I were 
>trying to make, which is that there is a world of IG-related 
>institutions and activities outside of the IGF, and the success of 
>the IGF rests on integrating it with them.

Well, we could have a long discussion about what is meant by "success 
of the IGF" but I think it would be pointless.

>So let's all sit back and wait for Suresh's inevitable personal 
>attack, let it pass, and then continue the dialogue on that topic.

These ad hominem attacks help no one except maybe you.  Take the chip 
of your shoulder; it's neither pretty nor productive.


Here's my bottom line.  By and large, Internet organizations with 
which I'm familiar are open and welcome involvement by others.  But; 
like any other social group, it helps to know something about the 
subject first (or just admit that you're a newbie and there to listen 
and learn), and to enter the group with a cooperative and 
collaborative attitude  --  an to expect that there maybe some jerks 
in the group, but they're probably a small minority.

>
>--MM

George

____________________________________________________________
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