Greg,
{ ... the types of
{ proposals you made to me and the lists were not the same type you
{ would make in your profession for similar circumstances. In other
{ words, you hold the Internet to different standards than the
{ surveying profession.
Professional practice is concerned to maintain strict continuity with
antecedents which have grown up over several lifetimes (to say the
least). The idea of the Internet as any sort of legal entity is not even
5 years old. It astounds me that cases decided in (and out of) courts
which hardly had a clue what they were doing are cited as established
precedent, but is that what you mean by a different standard?
Professional practice addresses end usage: is this building safe? Does
that monument represent the best fit of property lines among all parties'
interests? The Internet is a medium, plain and simple except for the
fact that for the first time we have 'deconstructed' the way it operates
(as if somebody has to joggle the air molecules up and down in order for
us to hear). Is that a different standard?
{ I'll grant that the Internet is (among other
{ things) an educational tool, but even educational tools have to have
{ some sort of structure they can rely upon so people can focus on
{ learning. For example, it would not be proper to require everyone to
{ change to names as numbers because that would interfere with the other
{ types of learning that go on on the net.
I think you misread me. Im hardly interested in its institutional use
to pipe canned 'information' to naive consumers, but rather the exercise
of homo sap's ability to abstract from experience and to concretize those
abstractions in deed. The net itself is thus a learning experience, in
the same way that walking or talking is.
Maybe this is worth expanding: it is so, not just for 'kids' who have
never done it before, but for anyone who *enjoys* doing it - as distinct
from those who take it for granted ('adults' if you will). Obviously its
a fine and delicate line between whats 'fun' and whats 'workmanlike' but
I submit that the same tension runs between the libertines and the
puritans, as well as the trademarkers and the freelancers -- and that
whatever policy is followed in one venue will permeate the others.
That is, certainly we can make an internet that is methodologically safe
and sound for *contemporary business -- but we also have to recognize
that prescribing the future rarely has the effect we want. Leave some
'slop' or your shay will seize up, sure enough.
...
{ I think if you had suggested this in the first place, your intent
{ would have been clearer. Then we could debate whether it was
{ feasible to carry it out.
You *will use words that I associate with 'following plans,' wont you?
Who am I that I should have a plan spring fully formed from my brow?
(Sorry, there's that Juno connection again ;-))
{ Also
{ consider that the telephone industry is much more mature than the
{ Internet.
Its interesting that those experienced in other media -- especially radio
-- seem so scarce on the ground here.
{ Possibly. I don't know if ifwp is the right list upon which to frame
{ those discussions in that manner. I don't mind having this type of
{ discussion, but I think the ifwp folks are looking for something
{ that's perhaps more solution-oriented than identify-problem-oriented.
{
Im sure you're right. Philosophy and ethics always take a back seat to
getting things done - is that what you mean?
{ >As I say, have you got another idea about getting folks to see that
{ >theyre in a learning process? -- that (while Im at it!) the primary
{ >value ('highest and best use') of the Internet is *educational, and
that
{ >this business of whose site is called what is just an example (and a
{ >picayune example at that) of problems that *could be solved by people
who
{ > consciously understood what they were doing? Im all ears -- but dont
{ >look for my immediate agreement, please!
{
{ It may be the case that in fact there are some fundamental problems
{ that need to be identified before any useful solutions can be
{ developed.
Should we let that stand in the way of a good brawl? ;-)
{ A lot of what has happened in the
{ past 10 or so years consists of trying to graft things into the
{ existing architecture in the hopes that they will work until the
{ better conceived architecture can be deployed. In this process some
{ fundamental mistakes in both technology and policy were made. But
{ there is a desire to keep everything working, rather than to wipe the
{ slate clean and start over. Thus, the need to figure out how to
{ transition to better architectures while at the same time keeping the
{ existing architecture functional and able to grow so it is still
{ useful.
{
Well said. In this process however, I consider the 'fundamentals' to be
much deeper than, say, whether NSI should charge for domain registration.
(Has anybody tested that policy against the Westmark decision, btw?)
although it may or may not be a 'mistake' -- a mistake is only something
that makes you do something you werent 'prepared' to do, as the one
concept implies the other.
The notion Im *playing with is that every social structure that has ever
come down the pike has been as conditional on external limitations as any
trademark, be it geography or resources or nutrition or whatever.
We have thus been able to keep 'engineering' on one side and 'politics'
on another, *up to now*. The digital revolution however obliterates all
such boundary conditions: so far, for instance, we have noticed that the
'mass media' really do have societal consequences, and that money
management really does influence decision making, and that telephony is
essentially the same game as entertainment and publishing. Are we any
better positioned for all that, to deal with school=job for instance --
or are we still trying to deal with *existing conceptual architectures,
patching and plastering and behind the curve at every step? The way to
avoid mistakes is to foresee; that is, to pay attention to what does
*not* exist -- the potentio, not the act.
Does this imply 'starting over'? Not at all -- it merely implies that
one has to know where one is (what exists) if looking ahead is to have
any value in getting somewhere else. If youre stumbling around in a
swamp, trading one unknown location for another is not much help, nor is
merely hoping that one more step will suddenly bring you out on dry land.
Keep going, by all means, or else you'll sink -- but doesnt it seem wise
to use the change of position to change your *perspective? (Is there
moss on both sides of that thar tree?)
Does all this mean that ICANN is not merely "a narrowly focused technical
body charged with certain policymaking and coordination tasks,"
but has the *potential to seriously affect our lives? I think it does,
and I think we can grow it the way we would like it to be (e.g. a
legitimately elected government of cyberspace") and avoid being swamped
if we use the (engineering/ social) sense that God gave geeks.
Have fun ;-)
kerry
