[discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
Barry Shein
bzs at world.std.com
Tue Mar 25 17:47:48 UTC 2014
Aren't we just circling back to the usual practices of CoI statements
and recusal based on transparency?
Or is the assertion that these are not sufficient safeguards thus we
need to exclude potentially interested parties from decision-making
positions entirely?
This really does go to the heart of the entire concept of
multistakeholderism.
Which stakeholders must be /a priori/ excluded from decision making
roles? Shall we generate a full list? Surely it's not only industries
with a direct interest in the outcome of some decisions.
Beyond CoI and recusal the biggest safeguards should be those against
undue influence: That as a stakeholder interest group they get one and
only one vote (or whatever is the norm.)
MAY I TELL A JOKE (there is nothing after this so you may stop reading
here)?
Four clergy are out playing golf.
One hits a shot which bounces off a passing bird and into the hole.
An argument ensues as to whether this is legal under the rules.
After much heated argument the golfer who hit the bird looks to the
sky and cries "Lord! Give us a sign! Show them this shot counts!"
At which point dark clouds appear, a bright light cuts through the
clouds, there is the rumbling of thunder and lightning, and a booming
voice from the heavens says: IT'S LEGAL!
The other three clergy say they will talk it over and adjourn for a
few minutes.
They come back declaring a decision: That's STILL three against two!
On March 25, 2014 at 07:56 parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) wrote:
>
> I have seen hundreds of discussions here which begin by the poser, and a
> basic political question - how can those who are already among the most
> powerful - big business - be actually given rights to make public policy
> decisions on par with people's representatives, quickly end up in
> responses like how can you keep industry out of the room or not consult
> them.. !!???
>
> It seems to be of no avail that the original questioner keeps asserting
> that neither that person nor it seems anyone else ever said that
> industry should not be consulted - however elaborate a meaning be
> applied to the term 'consultation' ....
>
> There is a huge huge difference between consulting and being a part of
> decision making, that too, specifically on public policy making...
>
> Unless we remained focussed on that 'difference', and also the specific
> meaning of 'what is a public policy', and what does 'making and
> enforcing public policy entail' , we wont make progress on discussing
> this particular issue - the political role and status, or even
> definition, of multistakeholderism. If there is will here to discuss
> these elements seperately we can perhaps do that. Because
> multistakeholder (public) policy making is the new elephant in the IG
> room, and it better be addressed upfront.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Tuesday 25 March 2014 05:32 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> > On March 22, 2014 at 16:18 gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it really acceptable for the process towards the establishment of global
> > > standards for sugar intake to be "(co)sponsored" by Coca Cola for example;
> > > or for that matter for Coca Cola to have a member on the Board of one of the
> > > key technical bodies making recommendations towards those standards?
> >
> > I'm not sure this analogy is apt, as much as I sympathize with the
> > sentiment.
> >
> > This is more like Coke having membership on the board of a group which
> > is setting standards for grocery shelving. It probably exists.
> >
> > Surely Coke would have a legitimate interest just like anyone else
> > involved (supermarkets, delivery companies, etc.) And that interest
> > may well be self-interested but there's no obvious reason why it
> > should not be involved or why this would be bad.
> >
> > Now, if Coke used that position to favor their bottle sizes over that
> > of competitors that might be a problem. But that would be the end
> > result of a lopsided or corrupted process rather than a mistake
> > letting them into the room.
> >
> > But the purpose of the IETF et al is not to stand between the public
> > and the manufacturers.
> >
> > Most of the IETF's work is to standardize practices among
> > manufacturers (providers, etc.) in the belief that this produces a
> > result in the public's interest by improving interoperability.
> >
> > I don't believe I am splitting a hair: I think there is a time and
> > place for consumer advocacy groups, and industry advocacy groups, and
> > standards development bodies.
> >
> > Their interests often overlap in significant ways but much of their
> > effort is disjoint.
> >
> > Put simply: Merely having a pecuniary interest in a result is not a
> > /prima facie/ justification for disenfranchisement.
> >
> >
>
> <html>
> <head>
> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
> http-equiv="Content-Type">
> </head>
> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
> <font face="Verdana"><br>
> I have seen hundreds of discussions here which begin by </font>the
> poser, and a basic political question - how can those who are
> already among the most powerful - big business - be actually given
> rights to make public policy decisions on par with people's
> representatives, quickly end up in responses like how can you keep
> industry out of the room or not consult them.. !!???<br>
> <br>
> It seems to be of no avail that the original questioner keeps
> asserting that neither that person nor it seems anyone else ever
> said that industry should not be consulted - however elaborate a
> meaning be applied to the term 'consultation' ....<br>
> <br>
> There is a huge huge difference between consulting and being a part
> of decision making, that too, specifically on public policy
> making...<br>
> <br>
> Unless we remained focussed on that 'difference', and also the
> specific meaning of 'what is a public policy', and what does 'making
> and enforcing public policy entail' , we wont make progress on
> discussing this particular issue - the political role and status, or
> even definition, of multistakeholderism. If there is will here to
> discuss these elements seperately we can perhaps do that. Because
> multistakeholder (public) policy making is the new elephant in the
> IG room, and it better be addressed upfront. <br>
> <br>
> parminder <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 25 March 2014 05:32 AM,
> Barry Shein wrote:<br>
> </div>
> <blockquote cite="mid:21296.51077.915144.99973 at world.std.com"
> type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">
> On March 22, 2014 at 16:18 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gurstein at gmail.com">gurstein at gmail.com</a> (michael gurstein) wrote:
> >
> > Is it really acceptable for the process towards the establishment of global
> > standards for sugar intake to be "(co)sponsored" by Coca Cola for example;
> > or for that matter for Coca Cola to have a member on the Board of one of the
> > key technical bodies making recommendations towards those standards?
>
> I'm not sure this analogy is apt, as much as I sympathize with the
> sentiment.
>
> This is more like Coke having membership on the board of a group which
> is setting standards for grocery shelving. It probably exists.
>
> Surely Coke would have a legitimate interest just like anyone else
> involved (supermarkets, delivery companies, etc.) And that interest
> may well be self-interested but there's no obvious reason why it
> should not be involved or why this would be bad.
>
> Now, if Coke used that position to favor their bottle sizes over that
> of competitors that might be a problem. But that would be the end
> result of a lopsided or corrupted process rather than a mistake
> letting them into the room.
>
> But the purpose of the IETF et al is not to stand between the public
> and the manufacturers.
>
> Most of the IETF's work is to standardize practices among
> manufacturers (providers, etc.) in the belief that this produces a
> result in the public's interest by improving interoperability.
>
> I don't believe I am splitting a hair: I think there is a time and
> place for consumer advocacy groups, and industry advocacy groups, and
> standards development bodies.
>
> Their interests often overlap in significant ways but much of their
> effort is disjoint.
>
> Put simply: Merely having a pecuniary interest in a result is not a
> /prima facie/ justification for disenfranchisement.
>
>
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <br>
> </body>
> </html>
--
-Barry Shein
The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
More information about the discuss
mailing list