Joop,
> If someone breaks the rules, he is dealt
> with according to other rules, not the whim of an autocratic listowner.
> It's called: the rule of Law.
>
> We are here at a stage where we have very few rules to start with.
You may wish for the happy day when we have lots and lots of
rules to start with ;-), but IMHO its more satisfying (and historically
accurate) to assume that there will *never be enough*; that
therefore, one should make do with the rules one has, whether one
sees them as 'many' or 'few'; and, most importantly, that if 'getting
along' has any value at all as a mode of governance (rather than a
unrealizable ideal), then it *has to pertain to rule-making.
For this reason, its disingenuous to suppose that the success of a
society depends on what it 'starts with' -- tho I agree, that hasnt
stopped all kinds of social organizations from *claiming that it
does. Various religious sects come readily to mind, for instance,
but as soon as you think of *negotiating the rules, you're into
'humanism' -- or democracy.
> Consensus is formed by people flocking together around an individual who
> proposes rules that they like. That individual suddenly is saddled with a
> responsibility towards that group and that includes protection of the
> fragile consensus that they have just achieved.
>
It sometimes seems that way, doesnt it? But as a matter of
rational fact, your statements are fallacious. First, consensus is
formed by people flocking together around an *idea, and the most
important idea is that *no idea belongs to any individual*. As soon
as one feels 'saddled with responsibility' (that is, more so than any
other), one has backslid into what I called autarchy (tho others
might call it fascism). The 'fragility' of consensus is thus an
illusion: all you have in that case is a bunch of people who have
flocked to the idea that *someone else will 'protect' them (tell them
where to go and what to do)* -- not quite what you have in mind for
IDNO, I think.
Indeed, its not just an illusion, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, because
sooner or later, any Protector in this world will *fail to protect the
group -- and from what, most likely? Why, from the idea that *they
share the responsibility.
The dilemma for democracy is that it has to start out as it means
to go on, as the saying goes, but the 'human resources' one has to
start with are thoroughly conditioned by undemocratic notions. (If
they were already democratic, we wouldnt be starting out, would
we?) In this particular, your distinction between war and peace is a
good one. But its no use saying dem'cy is fine for when we are all
democrats -- fascism would be equally fine if we were all fascists,
too. No, there is only one moment worth fighting for, and that is
*birth: when dem'cy comes into being *against the prevailing
climate, the envelope of "taken for granted, sedimented,
unquestioned, unexplicated assumptions" (Raymond Murphy).
In fact, we can extend the metaphor and call it the amniotic fluid,
suggesting the cognate _amnesia_. Democracy does not have to
be layered on top of whatever doctrine already exists (for that
simply adds another layer of doctrine), but is already there,
intrinsic but smothered. It is *oppression that leads one to think
that ones native talent for getting along is irrelevant to 'today's
world';; that the 'fitness' required for 'survival' is a function of
'outcompeting' others -- as if Homo sap has not survived for millenia
with no economic or political theory whatsoever! -- that, in short,
one has to *learn to adapt rather than simply remembering ones
organic adaptability.
In place of 'childlike' simplicity and honesty and acceptance, we
learn intricacy and deviousness and obstinacy. In place of open
question-and-answer dialogue, we learn to substitute demagoguery
and polemic. Instead of maximising our potential outcomes, we
learn to throttle them to fit the 'bounds of decency' and acceptabilty
-- so that, for instance, even those who disagree with a centralized
DNS pay the premiums just the same, and those who object to the
concept of constituencies join one nevertheless. (What else can
we do? they ask...)
> There is no co-operation from ICANN, no funding ,
> no incentive pointing the way to a lucrative business model, no rewards of
> any kind.
I agree, individual responsibility is a terrible thing: there is no
Protection, no subsidy, no respect for integrity and self-
determination -- and no obligatory fealty in return of any kind.
> But there are people that are determined not to let even that happen.
> Why? Because they know the strenght of a principle and fear it.
Ad astra per aspera: perhaps they know that the principle will be
stronger *in action* if it isnt mollycoddled, guy-wired, sheltered
from the storm.
> The principle of an uncorrupted representation structure is the only thing
> that keeps an IDNO going.
> It is not much in the way of incentive, but someone's got to do it.
> The more support this someone gets, the quicker the pool of collective
> membership will be big enough to support proper collective decisionmaking.
With all respect, again I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
Proper collective decisionmaking has to come first, or you wont
have a pool of independent souls, but only a clot of dispossessed
ghosts, indistinguishable from any other autocratic, hierarchical,
ruled-and-regulated 'corporate' entity.
> I have just built the tools and I make them available.
> I would want to invite the GA of the DNSO to use them too.
>
We've spoken on this before; the 'highest and best purpose' of
IDNO may well be to hone the tools to the point where not only the
GA but the entire ICANN effort can be conducted electronically,
and all the ragtag physical-life political machinations can be
shuffled off the virtual coil - and, imho, good riddance to it.
kerry
