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

[Norbert Bollow]

Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> It seems to me Ian provided at least two metrics (solution of basic
> architectural issues such as security and identity, and adoption of IPv6)
> which one may use to judge the success of IETF. They seem to me to be
> fairly objective and operational.

On what basis do you blame the failure of providing good solutions to
these problems specifically on the IETF? IETF does not have a monopoly
on trying to come up with solutions to these or any other problems!

I am not saying that IETF is particularly good at problem-solving, in
the sense of delivering solutions that can be considered architectually
optimal or close to optimal. In fact in the areas that you mention,
strong arguments can be made that the solutions which IETF is giving
us are architectually very far from optimal.

Nevertheless, IETF is giving us solutions that allow us to communicate,
while being highly resistant to capture by powerful stakeholders.

If someone were to suggest to try to evolve the IETF model into
something that is still based on the principles of absolute openness
of participation, rough consensus and running code, but with a fresh
start on architectural matters (i.e. without perpetuating design
choices that look frankly stupid from my perspective of today that is
based on the significant progress that has been made in the fields of
systems analysis, software engineering, and information processing
system architecture, in the past decades since the IETF has essentially
irreversibly chosen its path -- these fields have progressed very
significantly since the IETF made fundamental design choices that are
today practically impossible to change within IETF because they have
so much momentum there), so that this "fork of the IETF" might be
better at delivering solutions that don't only work but which are
architectually closer to being optimal solutions, I'd be all in favor
of that. In fact if someone were to give me a big sum of money with no
strings attached, that'd probably be a significant part of what I'd
try to get going.

But we shouldn't dismiss the IETF model as irrelevant just because
we're not totally happy with the solutions that IETF is giving us. In
fact, it seems to me that even while there is a strong desire and an
actual need for Enhanced Cooperation, right now it doesn't look to me
like anything of value being likely to come out of the discussions
around that topic. And it appears to me that the reason for this is
precisely that pretty much all stakeholders are afraid that in the
institutions and processes of Enhanced Cooperation, powerful
stakeholders with opposing interests might have undue influence. This
risk and fear appears to me to be the show-stopper right now.

What I'm suggesting is that the IETF model contains a solution to this
problem that is right now an absolute obstacle to progress on any kind
of internationally institutionalized Enhanced Cooperation.

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