VincentCamp2004

tags

Vincent_C Camp_J SDO

url

auther

Vincent, C. Camp, J.

bibtex

@article{VincentCamp2004,

 title={{Looking to the Internet for models of governance}},
 author={Vincent, C. and Camp, J.},
 journal={Ethics and Information Technology},
 volume={6},
 number={3},
 pages={161--173},
 year={2004},
 publisher={Kluwer Academic Publishers Hingham, MA, USA},
 url={"http://www.springerlink.com/content/lt77736h087404h1/"},

}

format for references

AIS format

Vincent, C. and Camp, J. 2004 "Looking to the Internet for models of governance", Ethics and Information Technology, (6:3) pp. 161-173.

memo

As such, in assessing each model we need to consider the following questions:
(1) Who has a voice in the process?
(2) How open or transparent is the standard setting process?
(3) Where does the final authority lie for approving standards?

Essentially for the IETF an implementation is a standard. The process of diffusion is the process of standardization. In particular in the arena of defaults and detailed specifications, the IETF process is explicit in the desire to enable the implementation and diffusion processes drive the specification.

This flexibility enables rapid responses and encourages rapid prototyping and proofs of concepts.

A secondary effect of the implementation focus of the IETF standards process is that it creates an inherent hierarchy based on willingness to invest in a particular question. This has both positive and negative implications that can bee seen by the standards that have been languishing for many years in the IETF. On the positive side, individuals with a vision can embark on any potential standard if there is enough interest. The standard group need not die.

Depending on the model used, a standard would differ in terms of
(1) openness
(2) security
(3) privacy and
(4)interoperability

\subsection{Who has a voice in the process?}
\subsubsection{ITU-T}
Participation in the ITU-T standard setting process is limited to ITU-T membership – namely national governments (members) and select telecommunica- tions companies (sector members). Members and sector members are the only organizations with a direct voice in the standard setting process. Unless called as an expert consultant, non-ITU members do not have an avenue for participation. Since the ITU representatives of member states are also public offi- cials, the general public can voice their opinions and thoughts indirectly through their domestic political process. However, given the distance between the general public and the ITU standards process, this link is tenuous.

ITU-T: The ITU-T is the Telecommunications Standardization Sector of the ITU. Factual information pertaining to the ITU-T was collected at http://www.itu.org unless otherwise noted.

\subsubsection{IEEE}
The IEEE limits participation in the standard setting process to the electrical and electronic engineers that form its membership. In fact, the right to participate in setting standards is considered a benefit of membership. Valuing a diversity of opinion in the stan- dard setting process, the IEEE does invite public sector agencies to become members of the IEEE Standards Association. Nevertheless, participation is still limited to fee-paying members, whether individ- uals or invited organizations. Interestingly the largest growing sector of the IEEE is the Technology and Society. Any IEEE member can sponsor up to two non-engineers for membership by writing a letter describing their contributions. IEEE Technology and Society includes a significant number of those mem- bers.

\subsubsection{IETF}In sharp contrast, the IETF standard setting process is open to any interested individual. The IETF does not have a formal membership. Anyone who wishes to participate in the standards process through working group mailing lists and tri-annual meetings is free to do so.
Furthermore, since working groups are estab- lished from the bottom-up by groups of interested individuals, the direction of the IETF is ideally en- tirely dictated by the participants. However, ap- proval is a process that is far from transparent. IETF may struggle for many years without reaching con- sensus. While any person can join, advancing an agenda is tenuous and remarkably uncertain.

\subsection{Where does the final authority lie for approving standards?}
\subsubsection{IETF}
As RFC 2026 (The Internet Standards Process) de- scribes the ideal, ‘‘an Internet Standard is a specifi- cation that is stable and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.’’
Essentially for the IETF an implementation is a standard. The process of diffusion is the process of standardization. In particular in the arena of defaults and detailed specifications, the IETF process is ex- plicit in the desire to enable the implementation and diffusion processes drive the specification. In con- trast, details are embedded in IEEE SA and ITU-T standards. The organization of the standards bodies was a significant element in the OSI seven-layer stack that was doomed by lack of simplicity in the contest for diffusion and dominance with the far more flexi- ble TCP/IP and UDP/IP.
This flexibility enables rapid responses and encourages rapid prototyping and proofs of concepts. Technical documentation of implemented devices and evangelical declarations of working services are an element of IETF discourse. By requiring implemen- tation the IETF addresses issues of flexibility and efficiency in the most applied manner possible. The- oretical disputes about functionality are resolved in implementation details.
A secondary effect of the implementation focus of the IETF standards process is that it creates an inherent hierarchy based on willingness to invest in a particular question. This has both positive and neg- ative implications that can bee seen by the standards that have been languishing for many years in the IETF. On the positive side, individuals with a vision can embark on any potential standard if there is en- ough interest. The standard group need not die.

cited as