Stef,
In a recent interchange between yourself and
Esther Dyson
I note that Ms. Dyson concludes that a
"bottom up" approach
will be her course of action. When I read it, I could not
understand
how on earth she could view a system where she sits on
"top"
while others grovel at the "bottom" could be bottom
up. In my
opinion, I have always labeled that arrangement top down.
Over
the years, we saw Jon Postel promote that type of
arrangement.
Clearly, Ms. Dyson continues to promote his
policies.
Stef, if you recall, at one point during the DNS wars, Ms.
Dyson
sent Ken Freed, to survey all of the people involved and to
have
them develop a 1 paragraph summary which was to be
submitted
to him for condensation into a report that Ms. Dyson could
skim
in an hour or two. Mr. Freed gave everyone the impression
that
Ms. Dyson was so important that she did not have time to
engage
in the debates, but instead needed everyone's cooperation in
helping
to provide input for some book.
Several people responded to Mr. Freed in what I NOW
understand
might be described by Ms. Dyson as a "bottom up"
process. I
remember at the time some of the people commenting that the
only
way Ms. Dyson would have half a chance of understanding
the
issues would be to come and participate from the bottom up. In
that
definition of "bottom up" people START at the
bottom. Clearly, in
Ms. Dyson's definition she starts at the top, and everyone
else is
expected to take their position at the bottom.
In my opinion, this warped sense of reality is at the root of
many
of the DNS debates. (no pun intended) In my opinion, we have
a
situation where the U.S. Government, via their contractor Jon
Postel,
has chosen to support people like Ms. Dyson who then declare
to
be working in a bottom up arrangement. Meanwhile, people
who
have spent years, almost full-time, on these matters are sent
to
the bottom or the so-called back of the line. It should not be
a
surprise that basic common sense and human decency
dictates
the injustice being done. It continues to amaze me that
ICANN
members have no concern about being ushered in to
privileged
roles where they have no right to sit or stand.
Apparently, they do not have the personal
ethics to recognize
the situation they are in, and to bow out
of the process. I suspect
that some of these people have spent most of their adult life
working
to place themselves in front of others or above others. I now
have a
better understanding that not only can people do this, they
are able
to then define this as "bottom up" once they are on
top prepared to
oversee the flow from the bottom.
I appreciate reading the various interchanges that are going
on. I
would have never dreamed that the "top down" ICANN
approach
would ever be described as bottom up. Via your interchange
with
Ms. Dyson, I now am able to see how they define top and
bottom.
I wonder if they realize that other people do not share their
view and
will likely never express their concerns. I suppose ICANN
could
take that silence or lack of input as support for their cause.
As we
have seen with top down and bottom up, they are capable
of
defining the world to match their reality. I suppose they
could do
that again, when deciding that they have a mandate from the
people.
This all reminds of an old Microsoft joke about how many
MS
engineers it takes to replace a light-bulb. The answer is of
course,
none. Microsoft just defines darkness to be the industry
standard.
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
