[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Definition of Governance
I do not believe that we need to cater to 'evil' people. However, nor do we need to restrict ourselves to 'do-gooders' either. I suggest, however, that we do restrict the scope of governance to the 'smooth running' of the system. That, was one reason that I felt that individual participants' goals are out of scope for governance. On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Ken Laskey wrote: > It would be interesting to evaluate governance success vs. how > clear and accurate the statement was of governance goals, but I > believe that is out of scope :-). > > My past standards associate, Carl Cargill, noted that standards > development has a very long and dishonorable history. (Carl has > been at this much longer than I and also has a very well honed > sense of cynicism.) Per Carl, the intent of participants is always > to see if they can control the agenda to their benefit, they > compromise when getting some of what they want is better than > nothing, and they often create new standards organizations when > they can't sufficiently control the existing ones. Those are the > explicit goals and processes of most participants in economic > ecosystems. > > The problem with comparison to the US Constitution is we rarely > have a collection of people of that caliber whose goal is the > public good and not primarily their own. > > Our governance model needs to cover both. > > Ken > > On Sep 10, 2007, at 4:18 PM, Ellinger, Robert wrote: > >> Some thoughts that I have been working for a book on a new type of >> economics, entitled Organizational Economics: The Formation of >> Wealth. >> >> Obviously the US Constitution defines the functional structure of >> governance in the three branches of government, but more >> importantly for our discussion it defines the goal of governance. >> The preamble to the US Constitution has an excellent definition of >> the reason of governance and is the constitution structure >> reflects a good governance architecture. >> >> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more >> perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, >> provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and >> secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do >> ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of >> America." >> >> The blue-lighted/bolded clauses make up a good definition of the >> goals of governance, i.e., what it is supposed to do. Governance >> "establishes justice, (a level playing field and/or rules of >> competitive non-lethal engagement) which ensures a good Saturday >> night for the weak (that is, domestic tranquility because there is >> a level playing field and rules of engagement that are supposed to >> apply to everyone equally, [except for Congress {if con is the >> opposite of pro, what is the opposite of progress?}]); and promote >> the general welfare in two ways (by setting measurement standards >> (see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which states "…to regulate >> Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and >> with the Indian Tribes." and in other clauses To coin money, >> regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the >> standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of >> counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United >> States; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by >> securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive >> right to their respective writings and discoveries) and by >> ensuring a communications infrastructure of that era (To establish >> post offices and post roads). >> >> I suspect that governance in all organizations have the same >> goals. The reason for differences is cultural more than >> functional. These are not individual or organizational goals >> only, but also the implicit goals of all economic ecosystems and >> the reasons for alliances and standards organizations (e.g., its >> hard to trade without standard weights and measures and without an >> impartial market--which explains the reason for markets worrying >> about insider trading). >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------- > Ken Laskey > MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 > 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 > McLean VA 22102-7508 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]