[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Feb 24 15:21:10 UTC 2014
At 15:44 24/02/2014, Joe Alhadeff wrote:
>This is a very interesting and thought provoking thread. As we have
>seen in the 1Net process there is fragmentation within and across
>stakeholders in terms of views, interests and claimed representation.
Correct. This is what I want to test. My IUCG at IETF position is not
"what shall we standardize?", but "what do you want to be able to do?
so we see how to manage it."
Actually the internet technology is not perfect as it had to take
options. But it is rather simple, robust and effilient. Lower layers
are very reliable once the adressing issue is addressed in a neutral
>Can one say that there is a uniform IUser or @large interest that
>can accurately be expressed?
I do not think so, except a meta-demand: give me the neutral and
transparent means, tools and education to do what I want to do and
decide what I want to decide.
>How are those positions validated to be in the interest of the community?
The question here is: what is "the" community? I only know one global
community, it is humanity at large with quite diversified interests
except the common interest for self hapiness that is supposed to
incude perfect philia, universal happiness. This defines an asthetic.
The aesthetic defined by the consensus of the people of the world is
a people centered information society (WSIS Geneva). This should
define a symbiosis between ethic and technical development (since
code is law). I call it ethitechnics.
This is what we should discuss in my point of view? And we dont.
>It sounds like we may be replacing governments and organizations as
>stewards with yet another representation that may or may not
>accurately reflect the views of the whole especially when most of
>the "whole" would not express needs in terms of root servers and
>technical parameters but rather I want access when and where I need
>it to accomplish varying tasks with few surprises in terms of cost
>or intrusion and some faith in oversight and accountability as
>executed by appropriate bodies.
If you think this is the way people will consider the issue (I would
agree but not as far as forgeting nations, common interests, etc.) it
simply means that root servers and technical parameters are what they
are: pure details of which the governance should be delegated to an algorithm.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: jefsey at jefsey.com
>To: jcurran at istaff.org, steve at shinkuro.com
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org
>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:34:16 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>Subject: Re: [discuss] governments and rule of law (was:
>Possible approaches to solving...)
>At 14:48 24/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
> >ICANN community have the (nearly) final say in what policy is in its
> >best interests,
>I am sorry, John, but I am interested in the IUser, user @large and
>would be user community interests. Then in their common interests
>represented by their governments. And then in their collective
>industrial interests represented by their private sector.
>I would be interested in an ICANN document clearly showing these
>interests and those of the "ICANN community" and how they intersect.
>I feel that this is the main relational problem of ICANN: to show how
>it serves the civil society, private sector and Governments when
>compared to the possible alternatives, once removed the history
>hysteresis (globalization implies changes that will necessarily
>question this hysteresis).
>The HomeRoot experimentation project is also to help evaluating the
>cons and the pros of a centralized coordination, a semi-distributed
>(VGNICS) and a grassroots system (HomeRoot) in terms of usage quality
>effilience, constaints, surety, security, response time, power
>supply, memory space, accuracy, costs. For example, there is no doubt
>that an HomeRoot system addresses many African, islands and nomad
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss