[discuss] Why oversight? (was Re: Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan)
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Wed Apr 2 22:57:54 UTC 2014
There may have been a few conflating threads. For me the concern was
not generated by existing standards bodies in general which while they
need transparency in their operating rules probably don't need dedicated
external oversight structures, but rather the new organization that a
number of folks proposed on the list that has a more operational
On 4/2/2014 2:43 PM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Andrew, Parminder, all,
> for those who are genuinely concerned about the "social" oversight of
> standards-development bodies, the job starts mostly at home, national
> standards organizations. That is where most acutely
> standards-development processes may be subject to capture by industry,
> collusiont with corrupt officials, the effects of shear cluelessness
> of these officials. That is where foodstuffs, automobile parts and
> tyres, electrical equipment, asphalt, cement, milk, etc. get their
> norms and standards and where citizens are screwed.
> Looking at the global scale, and closer to our field, what good did
> governmental or intergovernmental political oversight do for the ISO
> 29500 standardization?
> Let's step ahead from this political-fiction episode; it may have left
> some usefull lessons. There may be work to be done where they can be
> used. We'll know when we get there.
> Alejandro Pisanty
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Andrew Sullivan
> <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:17:51PM +0530, parminder wrote:
> > 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.
> Sure. "Laws." That is, to the extent that technical bodies are
> subject to public oversight, it's normally under the aegis of national
> law. And of course, everyone participating in an IETF discussion is
> subject to the relevant (mostly local) laws at the time and place of
> But what you seem to be imagining is some sort of oversight beyond
> that. I'm not at all sure that it is "normally accepted" that such
> technical functions are indeed subject to the "larger public
> oversight" you're talking about, at least in the abstract.
> It may be that for specific things, like deployment on a road or use
> as an elevating device or so on, public policy concerns may come in.
> For instance, the Society of Automotive Engineers publishes certain
> recommendations about motor oil for lubrication; these standards are
> not controlled by any government, but are determined via the SAE
> process. They are in turn used by automobile manufacturers, who
> specify their use, and also incorporated along with other standards in
> pollution control regulations imposed by different jurisdictions,
> often when adopted or otherwise incorporated by a national standards
> body; this latter is what makes ISO necessary. And these local
> incorporations tend to differ area by area according to local rules
> and customs and expectations. We see that on the Internet today.
> What you seem to be talking about is an overall political control over
> technical bodies generally. I'd like an example of something that is
> like this where it is "normally accepted" that they are 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,
> I think there's something more to what you are arguing, which is that
> there is this overarching "public administration" layer under which
> everything is subsumed. I am not sure I agree with this picture of
> the organization of society, and I suspect that attempts to work out a
> way forward would founder on a basic difference over how societies
> ought to be organized. So this is indeed a fundamental point.
> Best regards,
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 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
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss