Tamar wrote,
> First, there was no need for codes of ethics in the past.
> Perhaps there were such codes but they were not formalized. We are
> moving toward a more formalized relationship among the various
> stakeholders of the Internet. Size usually brings this about.
Shall we say, we are *trying* to move towards a formal
relationship? And that Size often inspires one to look for formal
relationships? The point being, the move is a consequence of
certain parties' *impression* that informality (aka voluntary
participation) and 20 million nodes cannot possibly go together.
(Would that the various health departments around the world could
draw this conclusion in regard to human population!)
That is (as I tried but perhaps failed to bring out last night), ICANN
is not so much 'solving a problem' as *creating one, by *trying to
create 'formal' structure where none has been needed; by trying to
draw boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate bits. It doesnt
matter where one can get fitted in; once there's one, the rest follow,
in the name of 'precedent,' or 'de facto standard,' or 'code of ethics.'
I'm not saying that this "should" not be the case; Im saying that its
inevitable; that injecting the most well-intentioned dividing line
rather than accepting those which emerge from the state of
knowledge is intrinsically a socio-politico-cultural event, not a
technical one; that *whether it presently claims the role or not*,
ICANN had better be well and truly prepared to act as world
government -- and that therefore, its processes and procedures
must meet (effective from October 1998) the *same codes and
standards that it will find itself handing down to others, or pack it in
now.
> More
> importantly, the environment has changed. A code may be needed when
> the number of actors is growing and the actions of one actor may
> affect the position of others. In our case, a code may be an
> alternative to government interference, which most people believe
> is not desirable. Ethical codes emphasize self limitations, and
> reduced third party enforcement. For example, a declaration that an
> actor is "code compliant" may be attractive to clients.
>
How can any agency possibly mandate a 'self-limited' (I guess I
used to call it voluntary) ethical code? If gobbledygook is attractive
to clients, then the function of a 3rd party should be on *exposing it
as gobbledygook.
> Many professions self imposed limitations on conduct
> without basis in law. In fact, the law then adopted the standards
> of the professions. For example, practical nurses established a
> group of nurses that were more expert. These were later recognized
> by law and anyone who wanted to call himself an expert nurse had to
> register.
>
Therefore, your syllogism runs, we should set up categories of
expertise first of all, and then as experts emerge, they will find the
Welcome Wagon waiting for them.
> Tony raises an important question: where do you draw the
> line? I believe that the line is drawn where competition and the
> law do not adequately and efficiently protect users, and may reduce
> the trust in the rest of the servicers.
>
When is it going to sink in that digital space has no lines
*except those which are voluntarily held? If someone wants trust,
why shouldnt they have to do it the hard way? - Work Together.
kerry
