[governance] Review Panels

[jefsey]

At 16:17 15/10/2009, George Sadowsky wrote:
>Danny,
>Thank you very much for introducing factors of technical competence 
>and knowledge into this discussion.
>I suspect that your cynicism is born from years of personal 
>experience, but I would not be so quick to direct it toward a 
>situation which does represent a changing environment characterized 
>by a new set of relationships, and which deserves a chance to succeed.


Dear George,

knowledge and technical competence in a pseudo-consensual environment 
are good to protect status-quo, or at most a very slow incremental 
innovation. This implicitly calls for disruptive innovation as a 
reaction. Due to that reaction phase, such an innovation is usually 
initially "proposed" by opposing disrupters rather than by people of 
knowledge and competence (who went to less noisy but also less 
efficient research places paid by public funds). Please re-read IAB's 
RFC 3869.

This innovation will be opposed on the grounds of that disruption 
rather than considered for its (may be too early) innovative merit. 
This is how disruptive innovation may consolidate technical, 
political, relational etc. status-quo. For example, look at the 
so-called "alt-roots" and the IETF disinterest in ICP-3, leaving 
ICANN stark-naked in front of the current technology evolution.

This makes progress only result from States sponsored or users 
supported architectural reviews. In very large systems like the 
Internet, reviews will probably be major. It will sweep entire 
industries with too important changes, without enough transition, for 
most not to suffer. BTW, one calls that a revolution.
We never experienced a world revolution yet. Until now (end of the 
80's), very large systems (telephone, postal services, power network, 
etc.) where mostly operated by state monopolies with an high 
resilience factor. This is not the case anymore 20 years later on, 
while the decremental cost of confusion and pollution (including in 
the DNS) puts many global things at individual range.

The US Cybersecurity document is not bad. It says that status-quo is 
a mistake. In a situation (you agree about this) which has changed, 
is that not very risky to give a chance more to a management method 
(governance by status-quo) which has led to status-quo? Moreover 
while a specially designed solution has been consensually documented 
not a long ago and not yet given a try?

I was at the core of the US deregulation short view datacoms mistake. 
It left the USA outside of the international communication network 
and without a nationwide network. This called for the Internet 
national patch. The world accepted that patch for a while, because we 
needed the USA to hold back their industrial and political digital 
rank. I think that while is over. Not because anyone said it or 
decided it, but because technology says it. The same as the planet 
says "please stop polluting". The internet says "please stop 
ICANNing" or something very near. Not again ICANN per se, but again 
the mental and technical attitude which led to ICANN and permits it to survive.

What is very worrying is that the people of knowledge and technical 
competences that are selected certainly feel something is around. 
However, they are not those who are doing it. Those who know and are 
technically competent enough for blowing a revolution have not been 
spotted. This is why I say we need first to comb the world, through 
local IGFs, to find these people and get them and their idea 
evaluated by their peers and by pundits. Then to evaluate the very 
bests plans, not their resumes, place of birth, political friends or wealth.

jfc



____________________________________________________________
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