[discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

Sun Mar 23 16:33:10 UTC 2014

Stephen,

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 8:41 AM
To: michael gurstein; 'S Moonesamy'; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

On 03/23/2014 03:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> As I  said before I am not sufficiently familiar with the IETF to 
> comment on its internal processes.

But you have commented on those. And negatively. You are very clearly
contradicting yourself here IMO.
[MG>] some examples please...

> However, the IETF is presented (and most of those involved appear to 
> enthusiastically welcome its role) as a significant element in, and 
> even exemplar of multistakeholderism where MSism is the preferred 
> modality for public policy making in an Internet Governance context.

If you had said:

"However, the IETF is presented (and most of those involved appear to
enthusiastically welcome its role) as a significant element in, and even
exemplar of a multistakeholder model in operation."

...then I'd agree. The IETF is significant and a good example of that kind
of setup.
[MG>] okay

But I think the "MSism" term you used is laden with all sorts of baggage of
which I'm unaware so I don't actually get what you meant and hence neither
agree nor disagree with you.
[MG>] The issue of who has laden the terminology/practices of MSism with
"baggage" is an interesting one.  Are you for example, seriously suggesting
that the Multistakeholder processes which the USG is referring to in
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/prsrl/2014/221946.htm only have to do with
what you and your IETF colleagues are doing in your various internal
processes.

M

S.

> 
> Issues of conflict of interest, lobbyist registration/transparency, 
> suborning of processes etc. would thus need to apply with the IETF 
> equally as elsewhere unless of course traditional concerns for 
> ensuring that the public interest is foremost in public policy making 
> is seen as no longer relevant in the midst of MSist "enhanced democracy".
> 
> How precisely this could/should be done in the overall context of 
> MSism and specifically the IETF (or whatever) would seem to me to be a 
> rather basic element in any useful plan for the implementation of 
> MSism which goes beyond memes and slogans. This BTW is something whose 
> presentation I have been waiting on with considerable anticipation for a
very long time.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:41 AM
> To: michael gurstein; 'S Moonesamy'; discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> From the IETF perspective you can rest fairly easy thanks to the long 
> existing level of transparency. Again, go look at the mail archives 
> and see if you can find any interesting correlations between 
> sponsorships and IETF decision making. If you do, I'm sure that those 
> would be treated as great input for how to improve our processes.
> 
> And no, I'm not claiming perfection. Anyone with money can pay a 
> consultant to work on their behalf and that is not always transparent. 
> That has come up in the IETF in IPR discussions and we've landed where 
> we are in terms of requiring IPR disclosures to be made in some 
> circumstances. (I don't recall all the arguments as they apply in 
> consultant cases to be honest but you can find
> 'em.) I also don't recall if anyone has suggested extending that kind 
> of disclosure requirement to more than IPR, but if you or someone 
> wants to suggest that go right ahead if you're willing to do the work. 
> (And there is work involved in figuring out a sensible proposal for 
> that kind of thing out and plenty more work in getting rough consensus 
> for your proposal.)
> 
> But *please* don't bother to try take the tack of suggesting 
> licensing, or registration or requiring government permission before 
> one can contribute to the IETF. That would a) not fly and b) would be 
> plain dumb:-)
> 
> S.
> 
> On 03/23/2014 02:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> Many countries now have laws governing the behavior of lobbyists and 
>> requiring them  to register if they are going to act as lobbyists in 
>> attempting to influence public policy. The intent is specifically to 
>> ensure that there are controls and some imposed transparency on the 
>> attempts by lobbyists to influence public policy in support of the 
>> interests of their corporate clients.
>>
>> One issue that obviously arises with respect to multistakeholderism 
>> is the lack of such laws and such registration. (In response to your 
>> question such transparency might be useful even in a forum such as 
>> this one for example, so we know who is being paid to express certain 
>> opinions and whose opinions represent which corporate interests.)
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+1net at elandsys.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:01 PM
>> To: michael gurstein; discuss at 1net.org
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>> At 11:22 21-03-2014, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> Great to see Comcast supporting the public good err. it's 
>>> stakeholder interests. err. "multistakeholderism" and "our" 
>>> institutions for supporting "enhanced democracy" err 
>>> "multistakeholderism" blithely accepting such sponsorship.
>>
>> There is a cost to my participation.  If I cannot afford to do that I
can:
>>
>>    (a) Stop participating
>>
>>    (b) Accept financial sponsorship from Comcast (I used Comcast as 
>> an
>> example)
>>
>> Is it acceptable for me to do (b), assuming I will disclose the 
>> financial sponsorship?
>>
>> Regards,
>> S. Moonesamy
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> 