[Internetgovtech] Involvement from other constituencies (was: US Government response to the European Commission statement)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrea,
At 10:11 25-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>But I do think that, IF we agree that better dialogue between the world of
>the Internet "technical community" and other worlds (public administrations,
>civil society, etc) is a "good thing", we not refrain from at least 
>experimenting.
>You might disagree, but it seems clear to me that the approach "the mailing
>lists are open, you just need to subscribe" (which seems to me to be the
>standard 'modus operandi' around the IETF) has not produced a huge increase
>in involvement from other constituencies.

It is better to take some decisions, e.g. building a wind farm, with 
the participation of:

   (a) Government

   (b) The private sector

   (c) Civil society

(a) and (c) do not participate in the IETF to the same extent as 
(b).  I read what was quoted above as increasing the involvement of 
(a) and (c).  I agree that having a venue open to anyone, in this 
case the mailing list, does not produce the huge increase in involvement.

There are some parts of the IETF where the work would benefit from 
the participation of governments.  Most governments do not see a need 
to spend money on that.  Civil society would not have the financial 
means or the expertise to participate.  If one does not want civil 
society to be used as a Trojan horse the only avenue is for the 
relevant government to pick the tab.

As I wrote the above I am left with the sense that I looked at the 
matter from the wrong end.  The most that can be done at this point 
in time is to experiment.  The problem with experiments is that one 
would have to accept failures.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy