In response to a thread which began a couple days ago, I
suggested that
> If anyone is interested in getting over such arrogance, one
> worthwhile way to do it is to consider how 'they' might *get a
notion
> of what a root server system is.
Bill Lovell now declares that
> this imbroglio has run its course: you demand what you want of your
> customers, others can do their thing their way, and we'll see how
> it all comes out, huh?
>
which demonstrates not only how little like conversation email is,
but how to actively prevent it from even being useful.
Did I 'demand' that anyone stop what he's doing? No, in fact I was
saying that what he or she *already does can be seen to have an
'educational' (is propedeutic a better word?) aspect. This may
make some people uncomfortable (tho Im surprised to see it in a
lawyer), but it does seem to be the unexamined alternative way to
understand the kind of question Richard asked:
> How do you deal with a clueless membership?
which apparently 'demands' to be answered with a universal rule of
Dealing WIth Cluelessness, without regard for the changing nature
of the issues, or the membership, or the Internet as these
elements work on one another.
In my unwashed way, I thought a trial lawyer not only stated the
facts of a case, but organized them so that a jury of his peers can
see how they fit together, and thus bring themselves from a state of
disinterest to one of conviction. If I demeaned the profession by
facetiously referring to this process as 'education,' God knows I'm
sorry! - but I throw myself on the mercy of the list to be shown how
it differs, so I wont make the same mistake again -- for instance,
by suggesting that in fact the real business of the lawyer is to
educate the *judge as to where his (or her) responsibility lies in
applying the law. (Actually, even I can see the ice is thin in that
direction; I'll stick by Mark Twain who said the lawyers first
responsibility is to get the client to stop doing the damn fool things
he (or she) has been doing. I dare say what he means is that the
lawyer *demands the client stop - and theres no way that could be
considered part of an educative concept.)
Democracy, I think Ive said before, is not simply a means of getting
the latest edicts distributed to everybody; it is in fact a means of
'dealing with' cluelessness. It is what used to be worth calling a
process, before everything came to be called processes, as
distinct from *states. Saying that one is in a state of cluelessness
is meaningless *until the state of others has been clarified*. (It
could be we are all clueless here, in which case we might as well
vote on Richards proposal!) Now, as soon as one other is found in
a state of cluedom, then the *statist says, Right, let him (or her)
have priority, maybe even a knighthood. Otoh, the processist says,
Im sure the clueful wasnt born that way, so let's have him (or her)
show the clueless how to *change state* . Sad to say, this
essential connection between democratic governance and
education seems to be on its way out, as statist language is really
*so much easier* for the rank-and-file to grasp.
Of course, democratic 'self'-governance is messy; there is the
possibility that a proposition
> to make anybody with a nameserver
> pay $1 everytime sombody used it for a lookup
could be introduced, could be voted on, could be enacted. But what
of that, since the *process of introducing, voting, and enacting is
still intact? Sure, there's always the alternative -- that Somebody
Rules what propositions are acceptable, not merely by broad
category, but 'at their pleasure.' Consider, for instance, not RJS's
obviously made up absurdity, but something serious, like making
somebody pay $1 any time their manner was not sufficiently
respectful of professionalism.
kerry, on the way to the imbroglio
(Btw, Bill, the WTO (heir of GATT and sister to WIPO) may well be
reproached this fall in Seattle; the EC whose members all resigned
(even tho some of them are beyond reproach) is to the EU as
ICANN is to the internet.)
