Jay,
The new paradigm that you describe is one which seems to be
logical, useful, helpful, because it decentralizes communications,
knowledge, and involvement of anyone, anywhere. With Richard Sexton's
technical knowhow and network systems expertise, ORSC could become a
sponsor of something which blends your New Paradigm with a deployable
system which I will outline below.
Taking Karl Auerbach's recently made point that the atomic unit is
the individual, I have attempted to facilitate the decentralization of
communications (minimizing private decision-making) by structuring a series
of activity-based lists which are designed to fit with such a decentralized
paradigm. It is all based upon the premise of the "i"(r)ndividual being
the atomic unit who deserves and is encouraged to be represented.
Using Karl's point, below is the atomic unit Multi-level
Communications Framework (MLCF), the organization becomes structured as
follows to facilitate *working together in cyberspace*, which is a function
of building common interest, or as Stef has tried to stimulate, a
recognition of Common Values. Below is a socially-sensitive web-based
communications network architecture:
1 Multi-level "i"ndividual-centric Web-based Communications Framework
(THEi.com Communications Svc):
2 Mass promotion can be made via agreements made with sponsors of
THEi(r)CHANNEL(r).com,
3 DECISION-MAKING LEVEL (building a foundation based on trust built from
OPEN LEVEL ):
4 icann.org (seeking to build trust with "i"dividuals, uses: TRUSTi(r).com
as promo service website)
5 i(r)BOARD.net (private list, email service to ICANN)
6 i(r)COMMENT.com (open list email service for receiving input from
open level)
7 iana.org (open list input, private channel between IANA and ICANN)
8 ADVISORY LEVEL (Representation, built upon leadership, statemanship from
OPEN LEVEL):
9 i(r)NATIONAL(sm).net (representatives from open community
nations, OPEN LEVEL)
10 i(r)ASSEMBLY(sm).com (representatives from open community
regions, OPEN LEVEL)
11 i(r)COUNCIL(sm).com (representatives from open community
locales, OPEN LEVEL)
12 OPEN LEVEL: (facilitating community-building by communications service
provision)
13 THEi(r)WORLD(sm).net (open communications systems service,
anywhere)
14 THEi(r)NEWS(sm).com (news feed service, anywhere)
15 i(r)DIRECTORY(sm).net (organizing, locating, searching systems
services...)
16 THEi(r)COMMUNITY(sm).com (community-building list services)
17 i(r)REGIONAL(sm).com (psychographic organizing of
communities by interest)
18 i(r)LOCAL(sm).com (town, city, county communications services)
*** i(r)POLICY(sm).com that can be broken up topically and provided to
specific levels, based upon the interests identified through feedback from
the i(r)COMMENT(sm).com list at the local OPEN LEVEL. Both channels are
designed to facilitate two-way communications through all three levels.
If we deploy a framework like this, built upon principles of unity
of individuals, we can make steps toward achieving overarching goal:
Minimize conflict and maximize contentment for anyone, anywhere by
reinforcing common values, by building a system upon a framework of THE
GOLDEN RULE: treat others as you wish to be treated.
COMMON VALUES (see Stef's list too): Open communications (white paper),
Transparent decision-making (white paper), need for Privacy of individuals,
Respect for individual people, Tolerance of diversity and opinions,
Equality of human beings, No discrimination, Freedom to think, Freedom to
speak, Freedom to work, Freedom to be paid for work, Freedom to assemble,
Freedom to worship, Unity of the universe, Unity of IP network systems,
Balance of self-interest with system-interest, more...????
With Richard's expertise in hosting lists, this could be turned
"on" immediately. This system is designed to be compatible with other
grass-roots efforts like Communisphere in the New York area as well as
various other efforts like Joop's democracy project in New Zealand.
Comments are welcome.
Stephen J. Page
T: 925-454-8624
(c) Copyright, 1999. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved.
>I suggest that we need a new paradigm for working
>together using mailing lists in cyberspace. Here
>is one idea I forwarded to the ICANN MAC, one that
>reflects the reality of list use today:
>
>
>At 12/28/98, 01:04 AM, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>>
>>>In debating the membership structure, what do you think about having a public
>>>comment listserv which is moderated to avoid excessive individual posts?
>>>
>>>Should there be list rules and if so, what would they be? So far, we've only
>>>discussed a per-day limit on the number of posts from any single individual
>>>and a prohibition on cross-posting.
>>
>>This question is one that has plagued us many times over
>>the last many months. I am slowly coming to the opinion
>>that we need a new construct for public comments that allow
>>*both* open and closed lists to coexist.
>>
>>So, rather than a moderated list approach, I suggest a
>>construct that features lists within lists. For example:
>> - Decisions Maker's List (10 members)
>> - Advisor's List (30 members)
>> - Open List (100s of members)
>>
>>Each list would only accept postings from its members, but
>>postings to each list would be propagated to the list immediately
>>below it (or all lists below it). This ensures an open process, it
>
>>gives everyone a chance to comment, and it allows work to get done.
>
>
>This is basically a list within a list approach:
>
>+----------------------------+
>| +------------------------+ |
>| | +--------------------+ | |
>| | | Decision Maker's | | |
>| | | List | | |
>| | +--------------------+ | |
>| | Advisor's List | |
>| +------------------------+ |
>| Open List |
>+----------------------------+
>
>It allows everyone to participate, it allows the
>discussions on the smaller lists to be viewed and
>commented on by the larger lists, and it allows
>the best ideas to "filter" up to the decision
>maker's.
>
>In actuality, it is an attempt to formalize the
>informal process that occurs today, while adding
>a dimension of openness that is currently not
>available.
>
>Bottom line, solving this problem is part of
>the process of creating a new tradition of self
>governance.
>
>Comments and suggestions welcome.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>___END____________________________________________
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
