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

[Andrea Glorioso]

Dear Norbert,

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> 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.
>

You are still reading more in my message than I meant to express, which
could of course be my error in drafting. I am *not* claiming that the IETF
has failed; I am suggesting (actually, agreeing with another person's
suggestion) that there are objective criteria through which one may
evaluate whether the IETF is succesful or not, and/or whether it should be
taken as the  universal model for decisions concerning the Internet,
including besides its rather technological remit.


> 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.
>

I am asking because I am genuinely interested in an analysis of the IETF
that goes beyond the rather childish and stale mantras, which unfortunately
permeate so much of Internet governance discussions:

- is "absolute openness" of participation a potential or an actual feature
of the IETF? While it is true that the IETF does not require fees, it does
require at least an Internet connection, which is beyond the reach of a
not-insignificant part of the world. Which means that this part of the
world is de facto "delegating" the power to decide technological matters
with an impact on public policy to third parties, not necessarily their
elected representatives. So, if you have to delegate, why not delegate to
your government, in which you have at least some (more or less functioning)
means of redress and accountability?

- the definition of "rough consensus" has always struck me as rather
context-dependent, to be diplomatic. :) From the "TAO of the IETF" (
http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) one can read that "*The general rule on
disputed topics is that the Working Group has to come to "rough consensus",
meaning that a very large majority of those who care must agree. The exact
method of determining rough consensus varies from Working Group to Working
Group. Sometimes consensus is determined by "humming" -- if you agree with
a proposal, you hum when prompted by the chair; if you disagree, you keep
your silence [...] The IETF is run by rough consensus, and it is the IESG
that judges whether a WG has come up with a result that has community
consensus*". Now, even not considering the inherent arbitrariness of such
loosely-defined process for taking decisions and assuming for the sake of
argument that on average it does produce better results in terms of
protocols/technical specifications, I wonder how you could possibly
transfer such method to public policy decisions? Would a decision on
network neutrality rules, privacy/data protection regulation, etc that
impact half a billion people (referring to the European Union) be
legitimate if taken following this "rough consensus" approach? How can one
determine the legal and political responsibility of a certain decision if
such decision is taken by "humming"?

- on deferring decision-making, which I understand is the "and running
code" part of the IETF approach: how is it possible to have "running code"
and/or "implementations of draft specifications" in public policy matters?
The best we can do, in my view, is checking what previous regulation has
produced and assess if/how future approaches in the same area should be
modeled - which, to take the example of the European Commission, we are
obliged to do via evaluations and impact assessments. But is this the same
as the IETF model?

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?
>

It is difficult to answer this question, because I do not believe we have a
"rough consensus" whether the IETF is truly exempt from capture or "undue
influence". Again (and I say it only because often discussions on these
matters require lengthy and boring "caveat' as everyone is convinced the
other side is basically untrustworthy) I am not claiming the IETF is
captured; but I have not seen objective metrics and analyses to assert so.
The 100+ years of experience of any single person, or even a limited number
of person, is not a proper metric.

Best,

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120523/42893a28/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