> Indeed, it does seem like ICANN -- or anything in its position -- > is whipsawed between its hybrid public/private role. I'd like to > think that 100% of the internet -- rather than 99% -- could be > decentralized, but there are lots of reasons to see centralization > occurring with or without those due process controls, or a > public-minded organization coordinating things like an > authoritative root. It'd be interesting to see what would happen > in a world of multiple roots -- I don't see how anyone can > authoritatively predict what would happen to the internet of today > with such things... As Michael Froomkin writes, sooner or later there's the issue of who chooses the deciders. Is it who runs the root server? Or who decides who runs the root server? Or who decides that there is only one root server to be run? The elegance of the democratic *concept is that the same 'algorithm' applies up and down the scale: the deciders decide the deciders because the deciders are us'ns. Now, I dont say its always elegant in practice; somehow there are always those who would truncate the levels with various ad hoc or 'obvious' arguments; e.g. only those who are 'qualified' to decide should decide, they say -- forgetting or not recognizing that the process of qualification too is decidable. This is particularly the case when the synonymous phrase 'educated to the issues' is used: how often is the direct implication acted on that the process of deciding is *educable? No, its usually then that all sorts of rationalizations crop up: it takes too much time; established conventions are already in place; we're not certified to teach; who will evaluate the outcomes? But all these are effectively *denials of the democratic process, even when mouthed by those who swear they dont have an undemocratic bone in their body. Expedience -- to name this anti-democratic stance -- is a fine and necessary thing sometimes, but in this age of expedience its worth looking at when, exactly, that is the case. It is appropriate if and only if one knows a) where one is starting, b) where one is going, and most importantly, c) how one will know when one gets there; then, and only then, can one afford to play with the fourth parameter, how one gets there. When, indeed does one know that these conditions are met? Fundamentally, when one recognizes that one has done it before (that is, gotten from known location 'here' to known location 'there'); or (derivatively) when one is so constrained as to have no alternative: if one is here, then the only thing to do is be there. (This, in case my language is too abstruse altogether, is the definition of engineering, and 'control' generally.) I have nothing against doing what one has done before -- its a very satisfying experience -- but its not the whole of life, and certainly not of civilization. The dominant cultural pattern, however, holds this precept above all others, first by truncating the paths by which one can live (law) and learn (school), then by voiding or distorting the words one might use to communicate 'alternative' 'approaches' to living and learning; we no long speak of being here or there, but of 'ways you do things' and 'where you're coming from' (note the pronoun as well: to whom is one going to communicate, if one uses the same term for oneself as for those one addresses?) -- precisely as if there is only one 'way to go' from one state of being to the 'next.' Under this perverted epistemology, 'democracy' means voting on prepared issues; 'representation' means letting someone else speak for you; 'freedom' means not getting caught; 'government' means the loss of freedom -- and 'education' means swallowing this crap. How we got here, I trust, needs no further clarification: wasnt it entirely by expedients -- shortcuts, and shortcuts on shortcuts -- applied inappropriately to conditions which had not been experienced before? Social engineers and technological advisors and scientifically trained methodologists all acted *as if* they knew where they were going, and were confident they would recognize where they got to -- because that is where being educated (by other x-engineers and y-scientists) will get you, if you dont watch out. Which brings me to the present topic. (Do I ever stray?) If being "whipsawed" between public and private roles is undesirable, what is the way out? If there is (third party) *enforcement, then of course there's no whipsaw; there are only public ignorance and private shenanigans which need never meet. But for most of us, including most non-profit organizations, the prophylaxis is to *integrate the roles so that the public view is not different from the private knowledge, and this implies wide participation. If that implies education, then do that too -- not as a 'strategy' or an approach and certainly not as a cure, but as an intrinsic ongoing part of ones existence. 'Anything is possible' is the modern paradigm, at least most things are *tolerable if they are understood, and the Net offers not only the widest but the most continuous participation possible. But shortcut the understanding and you soon find yourself 'weirded out,' a pariah in your own time and place, wishing for some magical enforcer to wave a wand and make everything all right again. Treat the Net as 'nothing but' the same sort of business as we've all seen before and the results are what we are all too familiar with: ad hoc, hastily cobbled-together derivative fragments that are proclaimed as solutions but are nothing but more problems. On the other hand, what if you take things one at a time and see what the difference is between being here and where you were before (if you have to undo it and try something else, wouldnt it be useful to recognize this spot again)? Which way 'leads to' deeper understanding of what you -- and I -- are *actually doing? kerry
