Ken wrote,
>
>
> The Internet is based on decentralized
> architecture, so let Internet governance
> be decentralized. Just because it's a new
> way of being in the world does not mean
> it won't work. We need to experiment first.
>
> > ... Those who demand a vote, and a voice in the
> >proceedings, lose heart when they discover that there are hundreds of
> >others just like them in the mix, and such events as . . . can we say,
> >hashing out some topic for years on end with no result? . . . never do
> >reach a decision. It is thus realized, unhappily as this may seem,
> >that to grant just a wee bit of direct voice so as to get just a wee bit
> >of an actual, working result may sometimes, in fact, be worth it.
> >
IMO, a large factor in the disheartening process is the *demanding*
that goes on, as if each voice imagines that the hundred others
have some magical power to act that it doesnt have itself. The
essence of collective decentralized operation is to listen, and think,
and ask, and take responsibility. If we expect somebody else to
take it, arent we likely to find that somebody not only will do, but
has done?
Interestingly enough, the usual first line of argument against
collective processes is that they take so long -- and wouldnt you
know, the primary argument for ICANN et al is that there is
somehow an *urgent* need (not to say demand) for structure to be
'put in place'...
In this connection is the one point I would object to Jeff's take on
things (re: Trademanrks vs DNS):
> > If we want bottom-up voluntarism, self-defined codes, consensual
> > decisions, and open records, then why dont we demonstrate how that
> > *works?
>
> It is already being demonstrated very widely now.
>
Talking is only talking until it has an objective. As long as we are
still arguing about *what to do, we're hardly going to demonstrate
*how to do it. If the particular 'problem' we have in mine is a large
and intricate one, then it would seem that we might at least agree
to an outline of the subcomponent issues. If we cant do that,
perhaps we should tackle some simple problem, just to get the
hang of *doing. What uplifts my spirit at any rate is
*accomplishment.
In case anyone cares for my opinion of what 'simple problem' might
be useful, I offer this one (from the same post):
> > Formal accountability might work iff there is something to be
> > called the Internet community, *or* Internet community might exist
> > iff there was a formally accountable structure -- but wait, isn't
> > that ham and eggs I smell?
>
> Well there is an internet stakeholder community, this much is
> accepted and well known.
>
I would say there's a *bunch of stakeholders, to distinguish the
aggregation from the (White paper) 'Internet community' to which
'entities or individuals' who operate on an 'ad hoc' basis are not
'formally accountable'. That is, if there is to be formal
accountability, doesnt there have to be a formally defined
'community'? But all the hoo-hah in the DNSO-representation
threads made it pretty clear that even in that context we are not
exactly of one voice on how to define that community. Isnt it time
to bite the bullet? Or is Singapore going to come and go without
even this minor detail being resolved?
Rather than repeat the suggestions I have made earlier, I will
ask, is there any category of entity or individual which can be
*excluded* from a formal definition? NB - I am not talking
'representation' here.
kerry
