{ From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
{ Subject: Re: Design and construction (was: Polling
{
{ >In short, this DNS mess is entirely backwards from the way lots of
{ >people are accustomed to working together. It wont get turned around in
{ >one fell swoop, but how are we going to turn it around at all if we cant
{ >sort out these two fundamental perspectives?
{
{ In other words, set out the basic principles in something like a
{ Constitution or Manifesto or Statement of Principles, etc.
{
I would rather say, *search for basic principles in a way which will
remain consistent with the principles which are to be found* - thus, when
they are 'set out,' they will already be agreed to.
That is, if the search is conducted in a confrontational way,
confrontational principles emerge. If its conducted in a consensual way,
consensual principles emerge. 'Setting out the basics' as something
which are *then* to be agreed to is essentially confrontational, because
a) it assumes the parties have other 'more basic' agendas which must be
worked into their agreement; and b) (tho its the same thing) it opens the
question as to what the agenda of the setters-out is.
A couple of corollaries: c) parties acting as if principles will somehow
'automatically' emerge from the melee most likely *hope* that consensual
p will emerge from a confrontational argument (Logically, the converse
should also be true, but I dont know any consensual group that developed
confrontational principles); and d) Such principles as do get set out
will most likely be made by _fiat_: someone who may or may not be
'involved' unilaterally takes the initiative to set them out, and if
theres no opposition (or not much ;-)), they become _de facto_ 'accepted
standards.' That is, those who assume the process of 'searching' is a
given find themselves stuck with principles made by others who read that
assumption as *not caring* what the process is.
Specifically, of course, these pertain to my impressions of this list:
argument and diatribe and ad hominem fallacies galore, and at the same
time laments that people with good ideas should talk to somebody else
about them. (" You should have addressed this question directly to the
ICANN Interim Board, not this list.") Well, okay, fine -- maybe the
'powers that be' (be they god or board or moderator) watch over us, and
glean the (good!) ideas and formulate 'policy' without acknowledging they
do so (of course - they wouldnt want to influence anybody ;-)), but isnt
it ironic in the extreme, since what we rave about is *process*? Are we
somehow committed to futility? Is that IFWPs basic principle? (Can you
say 'co-dependency'?)
I appreciate that voting by acclamation is often characterized as (rough)
'consensus.' Actually achieving a 'meeting of minds' is something else.
kerry
