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

[Norbert Bollow]

Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> However, let me point out that although the IETF may not have a "monopoly"
> in solving these and/or similar problems, its supporters do tend to present
> it as the best option for Internet-related standards-setting and, therefore,
> one may infer that other options should not be pursued.

Ok, fair enough, IETF's failure to create convincing solutions in some
of the areas that it has worked on is a valid counterargument against
a "no other options should be pursued" viewpoint.

I still think though that this is not a valid counterargument to my
assertion that IETF's fundamental model (absolute openness of
participation, rough consensus, and deferring decision-making about
draft standards until several members of the group have hands-on
experience with implementation and interoperability testing for the
draft specifications) is an effective means of creating robustness
against undue influence from powerful stakeholders.

Are there any other known ways of organizing Internet governance (or
global governance in any field, really) with a similar track record of
robustness against undue influence from powerful stakeholders?

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