[discuss] Why oversight? (was Re: Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan)

Alejandro Pisanty apisanty at gmail.com
Wed Apr 2 14:32:28 UTC 2014


to make this more practical. You have been expressing demands like this
over many years, and had ample opportunity to join the organizations or
take part in the decision-making or decision-shaping mechanisms.

What specifically have you tried, say in the IETF or in an ICANN
constituency, that hasn't worked?

The demand for legitimacy cuts two ways. The legitimacy of claims like
yours can also be substantiated in such a way that it contributes to focus
the discussion on its subject instead of leading it into further layers of


Alejandro Pisanty

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:47 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday 02 April 2014 05:24 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> There's a lot in parminder's mail that's outside my area
>> of expertise and with which I might or might not (dis)agree,
>> but just one comment on one word...
>> On 04/02/2014 11:58 AM, parminder wrote:
>>> I read mails here, for instance one from Stephan Farell, on 31st March,
>>> that IETF is *not* meant to take into account public policy concerns in
>>> any systematic way. IETF and other such technical processes are not
>>> developed to understand political equality, representation, democratic
>>> legitimacy, and such things. They are based on very different kinds of
>>> principles which may well be best for their delegated technical
>>> functions.
>> "Delegated" isn't right there IMO. AFAIK people participate in the
>> IETF because they and (for most) their current sponsors want that
>> to happen. And the IETF is relevant because it does a good job so
>> many many more people than actively participate choose to use its
>> output.
> A political community is based on an implied 'social contract' which is
> often a political fiction, although very useful, even indispensable, to
> construct political legitimacy, This implied social contract is mostly
> coded in a political constitution, which although mostly 'real' could also
> be fictional, as in the case of UK.
> I understand that at present we are trying to understand and form
> consensus on different global governance roles  vis a vis the Internet,
> based on some, I understand or at least hope, undisputed political
> principles of democracy, rule of law and the such. We also have to build
> upon some specific characteristics of the Internet technology and
> historical sites and means of its technical and other forms of governance.
> In this attempt to appropriately address the current 'constitutional
> moment' with regard to the technical/operational governance of the Internet
> , we may need to employ some political concepts and corresponding
> 'political fictions' . In that sense, though no one at present delegates
> technical standards making role to the IETF (although it is delegated by
> the US gov in the case of ICANN), it is normally accepted that technical
> functions of public importance, although often undertaken by expert
> technical bodies, must be subject to larger public oversight through
> appropriate institutional forms. It is in this sense that the political/
> public administration concept of 'delegated authority' was used by me,
> which is admittedly fictional in the present context (it is simply hoped/
> imagined that IETF does its work as per wider public interest, and per the
> public policies developed to that effect).
> The fact that, using the new Internet context, IETF crowd-sources
> expertise in a very effective way, which enables it to undertaken its
> technical functions in a much better manner, does not obviate the need for
> public oversight. Expertise of whatever kind does not replace political
> legitimacy, and we know, and, Stephen, you will agree, that IETF almost
> exclusively deals with expertise and technical merit.
> parminder
>> That's maybe just nit-picking on a single word that wasn't meant in
>> that way, (I'm not sure) but I don't know of any entity that tells
>> the IETF that we are now allowed to e.g. address routing protocol
>> security and I don't think there ought be any such entity.
>> It would be a bit weird if the IETF decide to write RFCs about
>> fish farming and I don't lose sleep worrying that that'll happen
>> but if a bunch of fish farmers turned up on a mailing list then
>> they'd be listened to at least to the point where the IETF
>> determined if there's some work relevant to the IETF with a
>> reasonable probability of success and that some other body
>> isn't a better place for such work to happen. (And I know folks
>> who have worked on how to layer IP and RFC5050 on top of
>> underwater acoustic modem based networks so something along
>> those lines could happen:-)
>> S.
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140402/3de618c2/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list