[governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics)

[Norbert Bollow]

Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > So I would suggest that the way forward will have to involve proposals
> > of concrete substantive topic areas to be addressed by the "Enhanced
> > Cooperation" process and its institutions, together with a strong
> > commitment to seek, through true multistakeholder discussions, a good
> > way to model this "Enhanced Cooperation" process on how things work in
> > the IETF.
> >
> 
> I may have misunderstood and/or missed something, but it seems to me you
> are suggesting that there is something in the procedures of the IETF that
> shields it from "undue influence" by "powerful stakeholders" etc. I am not
> questioning this assumption (at least not right now) but I wonder whether
> - assuming I have correctly understood - there are some analytical bases
> to this assumption. Not the least because one may distill such processes /
> characteristics and try to replicate them elsewhere (although I must say I
> am by default unconvinced of the possibility to replicate the processes of
> the IETF outside of the very narrow remit of the "organisation").

Hello Andrea and all

Alas I currently do not have any formal analysis. So far the only
basis for my assertion is my own observations, as well as confirming
anecdotical evidence that I have heard from others. However I am
optimistic about the possibility of replicating this "robustness
against undue influence attempts from powerful stakeholders"
property in the context of other topic areas. In particular, I would
suggest that the principles of openness of participation and rough
consensus may be applicable quite broadly, while for the criterion
of "running code", it will probably be necessary to figure out, for
each topic area, a suitable criterion which has similar socioeconomic
effects. I would suggest to look, for each topic area, for an informal
criterion that provides guidance about when sufficient information is
available among the participants of the discussion so that they can,
as a group, make a reasonably well-informed rough consensus decision.
Anyway, the principles that IETF is based on (absolute openness of
participation, rough consensus and running code) are well-known and
reasonably well-understood, at least by the people who have
participated there.

I would expect the big challenge to be in the area of convincing
governments to give this kind of approach, with a suitable replacement
for "running code" according to whatever is the particular topic area,
a serious chance.

What kind of analysis document would be helpful for that?

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- 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