[discuss] Transparency and Accountability vis-à-vis ICANN and the IANA functions
mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us
Tue Apr 8 00:06:32 UTC 2014
Many of the features of the Internet we value for technical reasons - distribution/intelligence at the periphery/loose coupling/interoperability - are also useful for socio-political purposes.
On Apr 8, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 10:42, David Johnson wrote:
>> In a small community, perhaps the "wise" decision maker is the only answer.
>> In a larger (e.g. Global) community, there is another answer: decentralization, diversity, subsidiarity.
>> Sometimes wisdom consists of not having even a wise man make a global rule.
> In general I agree. For the specific case of a namespace that technically
> requires a unique root, we are a bit stuck with a single point of decision.
> Otherwise, I doubt that ICANN would even exist.
>> Sent from my iPad
>>> On Apr 7, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2014 07:31, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>>>> I agree with Milton, and would also question the concept that the public interest is "mutually exclusive" of so-called "private interests."
>>> A wise man* (who was a research director of CERN some years ago) once
>>> defined his job as creating the best possible distribution of
>>> unhappiness. (His job was actually distributing the budget among
>>> competing research groups and their support services).
>>> I think that's very close to the question of what is the public
>>> interest. We can never make everybody happy simultaneously, but
>>> distributing unhappiness fairly is perhaps possible. A situation
>>> in which each stakeholder [group] raises its issues but some wise
>>> decision making body strikes a compromise is as close as we can get.
>>> *Lorenzo Foà (1937–2014)
>>>> I would also question the idea that no stakeholder group represents or seeks to represent the "public interest" (in ICANN, consider the ALAC and NCSG directly). At another level each group would have a reasonable claim to considering the public interest in one way or another. I would also say that the "public interest" includes balancing the needs of the so-called "private interests" with those of the "multitude," which can (and should) emerge from the balancing of needs of multiple stakeholders in the internet.
>>>> Of course, there is a tension when actively seeking to maximize the needs of the "multitudes" against the needs of all these other specific groups, which including various types of end-users who may differ from the "multitude" in their needs and desires, as well as all the other participants in the ecosystem -- none of whom should be excluded from the public. At that point, I don't think you are necessarily representing the "public interest" at all, but rather a particular socioeconomic vision of what's good for the public. And there can be a tendency for this to devolve into being a vision of a few (who may not be mandarins) about what is good for the many. And historically, that has not always led us to good places....
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 3:08 PM
>>>> To: 'Stephen Farrell'; michael gurste
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss