Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

[Heavily snipped, and I hope I have not missed another thread that 
answers my question.]

When I read the EU statement, the short section of government 
involvement left me confused as to what was wanted.  maybe, using this 
as a basis, you can help me understand what might be desired (as you see 
it personally.  I am not asking you to provide a statemen for the EU on 
what they want.)

On 2/25/14, 4:48 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
...
> To be clear: I am not suggesting we need a new SDO. But I think it's useful
> to put very clearly on the table what would be the pros and cons of
> having one,
> and this is why I asked the question.
>
> However, if there is a shared agreement that more structured and
> bi-directional
> dialogues and engagements between the "technical community" and the world
> of governments / public authorities would be beneficial (and quite
> frankly I'm
> not convinced we are there yet) then one can find middle solutions between
> 'ad hoc' liaisons and new, full-blown SDOs.

What I get confused about is whether having folks in the room, who come 
from government, and can articulate the issues they see, is sufficient. 
  That is what has been done in the past.  It seemed to work.

But there seems to be a desire, maybe in my head misreading your text, 
for a structure that more formally recognizes the government role.  Is 
that what you think is needed?  If so, can you explain what sort of role 
and why one might want it?

One factor to keep in mind is that one making some standards that are 
not used is fine.  It is in fact inevitable.  That is part of why we 
call these voluntary.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

>
> Ciao,
>
> Andrea
>
> --
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep
> it in mind.
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
...