Good morning folks, Rushworth M. Kidder is a thoughtful ethicist who wrote years ago for the Christian Science Monitor. Globalethics.org appears to be his current sandbox. There's more to read about his approach at http://www.globalethics.org/corp/keynotes.html Looking over his stuff, I see he tries to frame things not in terms of right versus wrong, but in terms of conflicts between right and right... desirable values that are in contention. So, if I could summarize the grand dilemma of the DNS mess for him (restating what's been said over and over for many months now), the inciting issue was whether all gTLDS should be constituted (or reconstituted) as shared registries under public stewardship, or whether specific gTLDS should be constituted under private control. That's the key VALUE conflict that hasn't been settled yet, and much of what's been going on here involves jockeying for power and position to implement a decision. That's why Chuck instantly recognizes the tension between consensus and diversity in Kidder's elements as Stef presented them. Keep in mind that Kidder doesn't present an absolute formula to generate answers to all ethical dilemmas, just a method for thinking about them. Most of the veterans of the DNS debate have made their positions fairly clear on this central value conflict, resolving the dilemma for themselves by phrasing things in terms of angels versus demons (socialism versus freedom, elitism vs. innovation, responsibility vs. greed, enlightenment vs. selfishness, etc.). I'm sure Kidder would urge you folks to get past that. There are indeed material reasons why certain players must remain committed to specific approaches, but both sides include people who's primary motivation goes beyond financial self-interest (keeping in mind that people can always invoke some ideology to justify their self-interest). By the way, I'm not clear where Karl Auerbach stands on that value conflict right now, and I don't see what the members of the ICANN board may be saying about. I'm curious to know. It may be more fashionable to thrash over how to define constituencies now, but the central dilemma is still unresolved. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Stef, > > Excellent stake in the ground. I would just emphasize one > thing regarding consensus that I believe you also pointed > out. Consensus is important with regard to universal > interconnection but is not necessary on all issues. If we > try to get even a rough consensus on some issues, we will > run into a conflict with value #2, diversity. > > I sincerely believe with you that consensus on common values > is the right place to start because our values should be the > basis of all our consensus building exercises. Happy New Year folks, Craig Simon __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
