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

[Andrea Glorioso]

Dear Avri, dear all,

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

>
> On 23 May 2012, at 11:13, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>
> I found your example-ad-absurdum with acronyms to be LOL though not quite
> ROTFL.
>

Well, asking a eurocrat to be entertaining is a bit like asking pigs to
fly.. I do what I can. :)


> I think that finding reasonable ways, perhaps metrics, of analyzing the
> usefulness of a particular MPD model for a particular purpose is indeed a
> good task.  In looking at organization, and in terms of analyzing them, I
> know that I naturally apply several criteria in deciding whether various
> aspects of a model can be reasonably applied to a solution in another
> problem space.  This is, in fact a very similar process I use to decide
> whether a protocol can be repurposed* or whether components of that
> protocol can be 'borrowed'.
>
> So for the IETF, I think the exercise would involve breaking down the IETF
> into some of its component parts, e.g. rough consensus, working groups,
> standard development process, types of appeal mechanism, leadership
> progression, capacity building mechanisms, methods of picking leaders and
> their term limits, forms of communication, relationship of leadership to
> the body politic  etc...  Some of these are more effective than others and
> some of these are mechanisms are useful in other organizations.  I don't
> think any thinks that the IETF, or any other organization, is the one size
> fits all pattern for all other organizations, it is just that in creating
> other forms of MPD I think it offers some good clue.
>
> The exercise might also include a look at the mission, (In the IETF case
> part of which in my own words) is to act as  a steward to the internet by
> designing and maintaining protocols that allow the Internet to continue to
> grow according to the Internet's generative nature, and the degree to which
> it meets that mission.  Has the IETF succeeded in producing and maintaing
> protocols that have allowed the internet to thrive and grow?  Is there
> perhaps another model we can compare its success to:  how does it compare
> to the ITU, W3C, IEEE, ETSI ... and others (in some cases perhaps
> better/worse than others).  We can apply this same type of analysis to any
> organization from the EC to the local rugby or knitting society)
>

The list of critera you enumerate are certainly a good start and perhaps
someone more knowledgeable than me could borrow further insights from
political economy, institutional studies and/or business studies, which
focus a lot on the nature of organisations, what makes them "succesful",
etc. The works of Milton Mueller and Laura DeNardis is also a good
reference in my view.

I have already raised a number of questions on "rought consensus" in my
reply to Norbert Bollow. Speaking of whom, I know Norbert has been leading
a very interesting exercise on mapping the IG space in terms of
organisations etc. I admit I still have to go through the interim results
of this effort, but I wonder whether the IGC could not come up/propose some
metrics/criteria at least to "categorise" ("evaluate" is a much more
complex process) IG organisations. Perhaps this work could be based on the
seminal mapping already performed by the APC.

One drawback I find in your draft proposal, Avri, is that you seem to focus
on standards-setting organisations. On the other hand, my interest - and I
would argue, that of a number of colleagues in public service - is the
extent to which the characteristics/methods of Internet-focused
standards-setting organisations, such as W3C and IETF, can be extended to
other areas of life and political activity. This seemed to me to be the
proposition of at least Norbert Bollow.

As for the degree for how objective these metrics can be, that would
> probably involve another spirited discussion on the epistemological balance
> between subjectivity and objectivity or human psychological ability to
> distinguish between the two. I would also bring us into discussion of well
> formed theories of  evidence, both anecdotal and statistical.
>
> But I have some work I really should do.
>

I am in the position - not sure whether it's fortunate or not - that this
kind of discussions are exactly (part of) my job at the European
Commission. So, even if I speak on this list purely on a personal basis
(unless I say otherwise by prefixing emails with the golden seal of the
European Commission) I will certainly be more than interested in continuing
this exchange.

Cheers,

--
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/20120524/d96441c9/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