[governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Thu Jan 26 04:23:50 EST 2012
It is crazy that an explicit or implicit efficiency standard was used to
argue against the UN, or the computer professional mantra of "if it
ain't broke, don't fix it" (forgetting the other one of course, GIGO).
Sure it is a tedious process in the UN, but warts and all it does build
legitimacy - and is more democratic (if not as contestable as we would
like). One may not like the state or intergovernmental institutions,
but the aspiration for such organisations (whatever the form of
dialogue) is for some entity to rise above the fray and balance
interests, not least systemic interests.
Multi-stakeholder governance can still be a good idea, but when one
looks at the deference shown to large corporations it is worrying. And
they have many proxies in "civil society"... in the environmental
movement they are called Greenwashers... and so it is no wonder that
some developing countries have emphasized Enhanced Cooperation. And
amongst civil society, well there was far too often a tendency to lowest
common denominator positions instead of a values based approach that
allows lines to be drawn into the sand. The health community has a
strong radical element that focuses on access issues that "mediates" the
conflict with more reformist elements - and often they do draw lines in
the sand. What is surprising in the health community is the extent to
which on many issues there is concordance between the North and the
South at least on diagnosis and often on prescription.
And MSG was sought as a solution in a process that was instigated by
some of the rich countries to deflect the focus on CIR into some softer
process.
As an aside, looking at it from my pov, even the fetish with competition
falls by the wayside as obsequiousness takes a hold (I say fetish
because there is a strange tolerance of monopolists, including
monopolistic use of Intellectual Property). It is almost as if the
alternate economic ideas of the brilliant JK Galbraith (countervailing
forces) were not relevant. The system needs a healthy antagonism, but
not simply in that post-modern genre of "giving voice" but more
importantly in the shaping of the contradictions that really matter...
On 2012/01/26 10:59 AM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 26 January 2012 01:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> Backing up Karl's point - as someone involved in anti spam IETF efforts, I
>> can assure you that it was pragmatic politics (the need to involve
>> Microsoft) rather than merit or best solutions, than dominated IETF efforts.
>> The result is evident.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with that -
> I think everything is wrong with this. (This brings to my mind all the
> despicable things that Microsoft did for getting the OOXML (non)
> standard recognised.) Private players should be denied any such
> political power, and there should be enough checks in the systems for
> this purpose. Traditionally democratic governance systems try to
> explicitly keep many insitutional checks in place for this purpose.
> However, evidently, the new post-democratic information society
> governance systems find such 'accommodations' quite acceptable even
> normatively, what to speak of practice.
>
> And such a 'pro-powerful' model is being exported to more and areas of
> our social life. For instance, one notices with alarm the growing
> business sector influence in WHO, which is now being institutionally
> accommodated ( BTW, which is right now being strongly resisted by
> global and national civil society actors in the health area, unlike
> what is the case in the IG space.)
>
> Doing governance with the prior accent of the most powerful is a
> feudal age idea which one thought was superseded by the democracy
> movement. But multistakeholderism as a governance system, in and by
> itself, seems to taking us back to the dark ages.
>
> parminder
>
>> but that the suggestion that IETF operates purely
>> on technical grounds with no other considerations, is nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: Karl Auerbach<karl at cavebear.com>
>>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Karl Auerbach<karl at cavebear.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:48:50 -0800
>>> To:<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes
>>>
>>> On 01/25/2012 01:11 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-an
>>>> d-why/
>>>>
>>>
>>>> The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. The best ideas
>>>> win through vigorous debate and testing.
>>>>
>>> As a person who runs a company that does protocol testing I can attest
>>> that the notion of testing protocols is a notion that has withered and
>>> left us with many code bases that are... let's be euphemistic and say
>>> that they are not industrial strength.
>>>
>>> Those who have spent decades in the IETF know that the notion of
>>> technical meritocracy has sometimes been a facade.
>>>
>>> One of the most overt instances of politics over technology occurred
>>> back in the mid 1980's when there were three different network
>>> management protocols on the table. One (HEMS) was elegant, but not
>>> deeply implemented. Another (SGMP/SNMP) was ugly and weak but had some
>>> implementations. The last was CMIP from ISO/OSI.
>>>
>>> For political reasons HEMS was sent to die. CMIP was retained as a sop
>>> to the then growing GOSIP, MAP, TOP bandwagon for ISO/OSI.
>>>
>>> More recently, but still in the network management path, the NETCONF
>>> protocol has had to wear the intentionally deceiving dressing of a
>>> "configuration" protocol even though everyone admits that it is a dandy
>>> network "management" protocol.
>>>
>>> I know from personal experience that when we standardized (in
>>> RFC1001/1002) what eventually became the CIFS protocol (used by
>>> Microsoft systems today) that because of pressure from the higher layers
>>> of the IETF we had to throw out a very elegant design and replace it
>>> with a much less elegant and scalable design based on DNS. (I remember
>>> Paul Mockepetris once standing on a table, glowering, pointing down at
>>> me, and in a deep and strong voice declaring that because of those RFCs
>>> that I "have destroyed DNS".)
>>>
>>> And we can go back to the beginning of IPv6 - there were several
>>> competing proposals on the table. One that had particularly strong
>>> technical merits was TUBA - it was essentially the ISO/OSI
>>> connection-less network layer protocol with an address space much larger
>>> than IPv6 and many other very nice aspects - such as a decent checksum
>>> algorithm. But it was ISO/OSI and even today much of that technology,
>>> no matter how well conceived, is still anathema.
>>>
>>> For instance, in IPv4/v6 there is "mobile IP" - which is really a very
>>> strange kind of triangular routing with all kinds of performance and
>>> security issues. ISO/OSI had a different method for this - it used a
>>> thing called a "session" layer that makes unnecessary all of the
>>> juggling we see in mobile IP.
>>>
>>> We still see the relics of the IP versus ISO/OSI wars - one of these
>>> relics affects internet governance directly in the form of a kind of
>>> robot-like automatic rejection of anything associated with the ITU
>>> (which was one of the engines behind ISO/OSI.)
>>>
>>> None of this is to say that the IETF and internet ignore technical
>>> merit. But to say that the IETF's output is not affected by political
>>> forces would be to say something that is not fully accurate.
>>>
>>> Back around 1990 the IETF faced a decision - was it to be a technical
>>> body or become a standards body. It chose the latter. And I think that
>>> many people who participated both before and after that date feel that
>>> that change marked a distinct reduction in the innovative quality of the
>>> work being done.
>>>
>>> (It does not help either that the management of many tech companies
>>> measures aspiring engineers by counting how many "Internet Drafts" and
>>> RFCs bear their names.)
>>>
>>> In general internet governance ought not to try to emulate the IETF.
>>>
>>> The IETF is a relatively objective technical world, a world in which
>>> goals and backgrounds of the participants are roughly aligned - and in
>>> which merit of solutions is, over time, somewhat measurable.
>>>
>>> In nearly every regard the world of internet governance is different -
>>> issues are more subjective, the goals of participants are often in
>>> complete opposition, and measures of merit are hard to come by.
>>>
>>> (BTW - for those of us interested in internet history, I think that the
>>> last TCP/IP "backoff" occurred in 1990 when we all met for a week in
>>> North Andover, Mass. at FTP Software and broke one another's software.
>>> And the replacement, the Interop show network because less a proving
>>> ground a more of a marketing network somewhere in the latter 1990's)
>>>
>>> --karl--
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120126/b645a5ef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list