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

michael gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Thu May 24 22:32:30 EDT 2012


And I`m still waiting for Bill to answer my questions...
 

I couldn't find any references to  ...  Pakistan or Iran as specific
supporters of "an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral
body.'" with or without the terms "appropriate" or "participative". Perhaps
...  you could provide the specifics which you appear to be quoting. 
 

Also, am I correct in understanding you to be asserting that indicating a
support for "oversight" by "an appropriate, democratic and participative
multilateral body'" is synonomous with taking a position for
"inter-governmental control over CIR". 
 
M
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Guru ????
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:26 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality
check on economics)



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/20120524/5b7c3ee7/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


More information about the Governance mailing list