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

Fri May 25 11:36:08 EDT 2012

Avri,

To be clear... Your original position was ``I think that the IETF practice
of taking three steps before deeming something a standard is part of their
accountability story.  First they code and prove that something works before
making it a proposed standard, then they test in the real world on the real
Internet and fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes
fully functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full
standard.``

That is that somehow a code (law?) is formulated (how, and by whom, and with
what process, with what ``accountability``?); then it is ``proven that it
works`` (proven to whom, by what criteria, by what process, by what
``accountability``);  then it becomes a ``proposed standard`` (fledgling
law?) which is ```tested in the real world``, (who does the ``testing``, who
are the ``test`` subjects (do they get to have ``informed consent``), what
are the criteria of the tests, how are the results of the ``tests``
evaluated and so on); ``and only when it becomes fully functional and
mainstream in the world does it become a full standard`` (presumably you
mean law here) (what is the process for having the law become ``fully
functional`` and ``mainstream`` or rather what does a law look like that
isn`t ``fully functional`` and ``mainstream``?

I compeletely agree with the need for much more open and inclusive (and
bottom up--``community informatics`` based :)`processes of policy and law
making (BTW the folks who advocate strongest for ``open processes`` usually
leave out the second part i.e. ``and inclusive``) but in the formulation you
keep pressing forward in this discussion all I see is a quite bizarre set of
likely scenarios in the real world.

I agree with the formulation by Parminder in his address to the Working
Group i.e. to separate out the technical and the non-technical aspects of
policy making with an IETF process perhaps being the appropriate one for the
technical--I have no opinion (or experience) on that... Also, I`ve suggested
what I think is a very interesting way of approaching the non-technical
areas (that which is emerging from the Open Government Partnership Process)
and in earlier emails I`ve indicated some of the reasons why I think such an
approach might be relevant here.

I see no particular reason apart from proximity to go with an IETF approach
and certainly I`ve seen no convincing arguments in that direction (apart
from faith in its effectiveness in other, quite different spheres... I agree
with the need for moving forward and pragmatically with approaches to policy
making but one of the things I do know (also as a former student of
Philosophy) where you end up generally is determined by where you start and
so I think it is not unimportant that we be quite clear and somewhat
dispassionate on the matters which we are now discussing.

Best,

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:05 AM, 
To: IGC
Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality
check on economics)

On 25 May 2012, at 01:35, michael gurstein wrote:

> Governments have enough problems formulating and implementing policy
> so as to accomplish what they are attempting to accomplish without
> subjecting the public to half baked ideas as a matter of principle.

What?  Governments are forever subjecting us to half baked ideas and calling
them policy/law.

I really am pleased that now a few offices in a few governments are deciding
to vet their ideas with the public first.  I prefer that the first time I
see a half baked idea it is not as a law or regualtion I have to obey.

>
> Quite honestly I can`t imagine how what you are suggesting would work
> in the real (non-technical) world, which is the reason I was so
> interested in how you envisaged this being actually practically
> implemented in an existing world of governmental or more specifically
> inter-governmental (or inter-governmental/multistakeholder) policy
> making.

I think I was pretty clear about how it would work.  I think we are back to
the same old problem.  You think that the social issues are so much more
complex and that people have a a greater diversity of views in IG than they
do in Internet technology.  And this is just not the case as every technical
issue also has its social components, its impact analysis and a myriad of
ways in which it can be approached (tradeoffs) beyond the simple bits, bytes
and framework definition language.

A good, but curmudgeony, friend of mine has questioned (off-list) whether
these constant recursions of the oversight versus self-governed  discussion
on the IGC aren't a waste of time.  I obviously don't think they are.  But
whenever one of my friends has such an opinion, I search for the thread that
will give me the clue to how we can both be right.  And as so often happens,
found the thread in Ostrom's Governing the Commons and her explanation of
self-organized and self governed CPR (common pool resources):

"
But until a theoretical explanation - based on human choice - for self
organized and self governed enterprises is fully developed and accepted,
major policy decisions will continue to be undertaken with a presumption
that individuals cannot organize themselves and always need to be organized
by external authorities " (location 452 in the ebook)

And this brings me back to what convinces people.  While I was trained as
philosopher, i came out as one of the absolute relativists - most all of the
philosophers made sense given their perspective and situation within a
cultural-political time and place and the only thing I could be sure was the
relative truth of what they had to say, most any philosopher is convincing
if you put yourself in their shoes or sandals.  I ended up working as an
engineer for most of career, because I found I could believe in what could
be built*.  And after 20+ years of working with structures like the IETF, I
beleive I have pragmatically seen them work.  I have also seen how the
principles and structures that are used in one area successfully can also be
used successfully, with variation, in other situations**.  I have seen how
IETF organizational tools can be used elsewhere to solve other
organizational problems.  For me that historical precedent is enough to tell
me that these tools are worth considering and experimenting with in the
current IG problem area.

Other people, as Ostrom says, need a theoretical framework that convinces
them. Some others need to see a complete and probable narrative for how it
might work work out (i.e. the thought experiment style of investigation).
So while I say lets just get to work, gather a number of adequately inclined
stakeholders into an open WG with a charter from the IGF and start working
on the problem, instead of jawboning about what might or might not be
possible.  This would not preclude others from searching out other solutions
with other techniques, or theoreticians from coming up with the theory on
what the perfect organizational structure for IG might be or thought
experimentalists from thinking hard.

BTW some the references for the US*** process on consumer rights can be
found at:

Policy stmt: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf
lots of stuff in there on how they are organizing it Moving forward by ntia:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/moving-forward-consumer-privacy-bill-right
s
The request for comments (closed):
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/2012/multistakeholder-proces
s-develop-consumer-data-privacy-codes-conduct

avri

*  (So I guess I am a pragmatic absolute relativist)
** (ok so maybe I am a pragmatic absolute relativist who tends towards
structuralism, for some definition of these terms)
*** yeah, yeah, the US is ... and nothing they say is ...  I know all of
that and for some definition of ... have said it myself at time.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120525/b94d0b67/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