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

[Ian Peter]

Norbert suggested -

>And I'd add that in addition to the right mix of people, we also
>need processes that ensure a meritocracy of arguments in the sense
>that when a strong argument comes from a politically and economically
>weak stakeholder group, this strong argument will have greater weight
>than any position which is supported only by much weaker arguments,
>regardless of how economically and politically strong the stakeholder
>may be who makes those weaker arguments.

Well, unlikely in the real world or in standards setting. My limited IETF
experience a few years ago, looking at anti-spam measures, put a technically
best solution up against the one that Microsoft was prepared to go along
with - a weaker solution. But with the Microsoft monopoly in those days, the
only solution likely to go anywhere was the one Microsoft was on board with.

There would be many parallel examples - router standards need Cisco on
board, search standards need Google on board, etc. And in the governmental
arena, moving without some of the powerful players is often
counter-productive as well.

So I think in the real world, the best solutions arent necessarily those
adopted, and big doses of pragmatism are necessary, as is accepting small
gains when you had hoped for much larger ones. Meanwhile because this is the
way the world is the powers that be remain the powers that be. I wish there
was another way to do things, but apart from disruptive innovation (and
perhaps something to disrupt the internet status quo is exactly what we
need!) there is little we can do, except accept compromise in order to make
some gains.

Ian Peter

> From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:12:06 +0200 (CEST)
> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality
> check on economics)
> 
> And I'd add that in addition to the right mix of people, we also
> need processes that ensure a meritocracy of arguments in the sense
> that when a strong argument comes from a politically and economically
> weak stakeholder group, this strong argument will have greater weight
> than any position which is supported only by much weaker arguments,
> regardless of how economically and politically strong the stakeholder
> may be who makes those weaker arguments.



-------------- 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