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

Wed May 23 04:49:44 EDT 2012

Michael:
I have no experience with the IETF but I have spent a lot of time around both technical folks and policy folks and the interface between them and from my experience what works for one group doesn't necessarily work for the
other (different mind sets, decision making approaches, tolerance for ambiguity and so and so on...

Wolfgang:
Michaels observations is correct and matches my own experiences. However, the problem is, that nowadays, where the "technical Internet" penetrates all areas of "public policy" it is impossible to sperate the two worlds. I do not expect that one culture will overtake the other one or that the two worlds will be - sooner or later - "harmonized" (take the best from both sides) and create a new "third way culture". To avoid a new "cold war" the way forward is to go to the next (higher) layer. The challenge is that the two different cultures HAVE to learn to work together, have to respect each other and have to develop "protocols" which allow an enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration. BTW, to investigate such possibilities and opportunities would belong to the tasks for a new "UNCSTD Enhanced Cooperation Improvement Working Group" (ECIWOG). 

Regards

wolfgang

Hi,

I also do not have an analysis, but from 20+ years participation would say
the primary reason that capture does not happen is because people would not
stand for it.  Over time there have been a few occasions when one large
company or other tried to ram its favorite solutions through the process.
But by the time the various WG and review process had been gone through it
it was no longer the solution that the large company tried to ram through.
And that is because people review seriously, do a bit of implementation
testing,, and argue their issues freely.

Another possible reason it works is genuineness in regards to ones opinion.
I have often seen the people from the same company arguing with each other
in the midst of a public WG meeting over the better path.  Just try to
imagine two people from a single country or a single organization getting up
in a meeting and disagreeing with each other? And yet, that would be a
healthy sign in my view of having achieved a bit of maturity in the
multistakeholder model

Often people say that the IETF formula only works because it is dealing with
technical subjects but that it would not work in the policy area.  I think
this argument is unproven and I don't beleive it.  I think people assume
there is just one correct technological solution, but this is never the
case.  There are many tradeoffs that must be made a long the way to a
possible technical solution and the outcome is by no means fated to a single
possible solution.  I think the technical solution space and the policy
solution space are not inherently dissimilar in character and thus do not
accept that it is subject matter that make the IETF formula not work for
policy issues.

The main difference I find between the policy arena and the technical area
is the consistency of people's opinions.  In technology, for the most part,
people beleive in the same technical solutions even after they change jobs.
In the policy area, people's views often change when they change jobs.  In
tech people argue what they personally beleive while in policy people seem
to often argue what they are paid to beleive in.  In the tech area, one
rarely gets a job because they picked one technical solution over another,
while in policy who you agree with determines who you work for and for many
people this means conforming their views to their potential employers.

avri

On 22 May 2012, at 07:26, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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