[discuss] Governmental participation (Was: Problem definition 1, v5)

Sat Jan 25 03:10:01 UTC 2014

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 

>And frankly, I wouldn't want to reduce political conflicts to matters of
>(differing) expertise. 

No one did that. I simply used someone in a government agency who might have a lot of expertise _as an example_ of a specific situation: how expertise would give that person an incentive to contribute to a policy problem in an individual capacity, yet that contribution might be locked up in an inter-governmental system if that person's views did not conform to the prevailing position within the government. Similarly, a MS system might - might - unlock it. 

Of course, a more open, de-nationalized MS model would also allow people who were not necessarily experts but felt passionately about the bad effects of some policy to engage as well. 

Aside from that, I appreciate John Curran's explanation of how associations of private actors create effectively binding institutions all the time. 

>There are piles and piles of literature describing 
>how politicians, by declaring something as a "technical matter", 
>try to de-politicize issues, i.e. foreclosing public attention and opinion building. 

So, you are calling Brian Carpenter a 'politician' ;-) 

>Reducing everyone to an individual expert does not sound like 
>viable solution to me.

Come on. No one advanced such a reduction; it is a fantasy of your own making. Enjoy smashing the straw man. But no one in this discussion, anywhere, said that all MS participation should be reduced to the "individual expert." 

>Otoh, the institutional issues of ICANN seem a good starting point to think of better solutions.

Agreed. 