Eric Weisberg a �crit:
>
> Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
>
> > ...I want to know...whether there's an IFWP...
>
> There has been an IFWP. We were all part of it. We met in the
> four corners of the earth and on this list to work out a decent
> and civil concensus. We were ready to meet in a wrap-up meeting
> to resolve our remaining differences. That effort was preempted.
> But, the IFWP constituents are still assembled. This list could
> be the membership of ICANN if "we/you" wanted to take advantage of
> an invented wheel. But, that would be too easy. Instead,
> "we/you/they" want to throw out the good we created over the past
> year and start again. I, for one, am completely baffled by this
> phenomenon.
The explanation is simple, Eric. ICANN needs to postpone the
formation of a membership so that an elected Board to replace the current
one can likewise be put off, at least until the current board has committed
the Internet to certain courses of action that might not be undertaken by a
truly representative board. If a ready-formed NewCo membership comprised of
the on-line discussion lists were accepted as the ICANN membership, the
present board would be replaced before it had a chance to complete its
"mission".
Michael Roberts has stated publicly, in a press interview, that the ICANN
will not have a membership and therefore will not elect a board until the
end of this year, at the soonest. It will take him that long to arrange
things the way he wants. The [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, the meetings at the
Berkman Center and elsewhere, the laborious creation of a Membership
Advisory Committee, the endless discussion lead so dexterously by Esther
Dyson, yet all producing no results, are a useful and hardly impeachable
excuse for prolonging the creation of the ICANN membership. Everything must
be discussed ad infinitem, everything must be made perfect, before anyone be
allowed to vote for the new ICANN board. Of course the membership will never
be perfect, and could just as easily be gotten together a month from now as
next year. But this isn't in ICANN's plans.
> It/we could have its/our own idea about a lot of things if we ever
> took a vote to determine what we actually want. Without voting,
> or some other mechanism for determining consensus and deciding
> upon action, there is no meaningful way of determining our ideas
> about anything.
There are mechanisms for voting. There are ways and means for doing that.
There are only two elements lacking: a third party to oversee them, and an
official sanctioning of the entity voting, in order to legitimize the
results and turn them into action. These things the IFWP does not have.
Every attempt to acquire them has been blocked. The Berkman Center has been
instrumental in this blockage. So have others. However, even without
official sanction, the IFWP and the other list memberships could
self-organize. The problem is not in our stars, but in us. We don't believe
in our own ability to self-organize, to self-regulate. There are simply too
few with sufficient experience in assuming responsibility and power, and too
few with the courage to accept the consequences.
> > If people just post interchangeably, why have two lists and fragment the
>discussions?
>
> As you know, that was my objection to the creation of a new
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" discussion list.
And you were right. However, the chance to have a two-way list run by ICANN
was too alluring to resist. As it turns out, it has been useful in spite of
the five-message rule, which effectively deters dialogue. Interesting
issues, many of them never really opened to discussion before, are being
pursued on that list. The problem with it is that one has the feeling, as
always, that no one is listening. Molly and Wendy's assertions that all the
discussion is being read and put into the Great Collator, are not altogether
reassuring. :~|
> > ...Selective filtering by each listreader is meant to address that, but it
> > creates fuzz when we're each essentially reading different subsets of the
> > list depending on whom we filter.
>
> I have a different impression. We seem to be engaging each other
> in discussion. The problem is the lack of a mechanism for
> translating our individual conclusions into group resolution of
> issues. We don't vote.
Even if we did, what would we do with the results? This enigma is what keeps
us from putting voting mechanisms into place. If we voted and then could do
nothing with the result, we would become so demoralized that we would cease
discussing things. Under the circumstances, it's better not to vote. At
least we keep the discussion alive, and in that there's hope. I believe that
this is the real reason, acknowledged or not, why no one bothers the find a
third party or set up a voting program.
