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

[Guru गुरु]

On Friday 25 May 2012 04:00 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 24 May 2012, at 17:42, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> When looking at IETF its probably also worth looking at some of its more eccentric processes and structures and determining whether these have ongoing value and/or scaleability. These would include
>>
>> 	• Lack of any formal membership structure (anyone can participate). This also leads to accountability issues – wheras governments are accountable to their citizens, and companies to their shareholders, it’s not clear who IETF is accountable to seeing it has no formal membership structure. Tnis lack of accountability also leads to no formal review or performance evaluation processes – which in turn can lead to other problems.
> People do not need to be members of something to participate.
> The leadership is accountable to the participants
>
> I have been a participant since the late 80's, sometime just via email and sometimes with the ability to attend the meetings.  I have always felt that the requirement of stewardship for the Internet was the most serious thing the IETF did.  And they are most definitely accountable to the world for the fact that the Internet continues to grow and thrive, despite all the barriers that need to be routed around.
This is a very inadequate, and may i say, a poor measure of accountability.

The maternal mortality rate in India has been declining over last six 
decades, does this mean I can feel happy about the performance of the 
Indian public health system?? (India has one of the highest mmr in the 
world even today and several deaths are avoidable/inexcusable).

Accountability is a critical necessity for any system which impacts the 
public ... and as the Interent has deeper, wider impact on our lives in 
numerous ways, we need governance structures that are transparent, 
accountable and support wide participation (not just who can afford to 
be there) ... and if we agree democracy is the best way to go about 
this, ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic.

> As for the IGC, which is indeed modeled on the IETF process, we require that people be members.  I am not going to accuse any of our members, especially those who pay enough attention to volunteer when asked, of not participating in a meaningful way.
>
Avri,

The issue is not of 'accusing members'.... the issue is - if members who 
voluntarily pick up a responsibility do not then actually put in the 
required effort (and having been in Nomcoms, I agree with Ian that there 
are serious participation issues), then _who pays the price_??? does IGC 
not get the best selection of nominees after required deliberations 
because of this. And what is the accountability process - of the person 
to nomcom, of nomcom to igc, and of igc to IG....? Processes with such 
poor accountability make me very uncomfortable...

The larger question to ponder therefore is - Who pays the price for the 
current IG regimes and lack of its accountability to the "global 
society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately?

Andrea also more than once raised this issue of accountability for 
decisions taken... I look forward to your response to him and to Mike 
Gurstein's specific questions as well...

thanks and regards,
Guru
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120525/5688e379/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