Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority

[jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kerry and all,

Kerry Miller wrote:

> 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'...

  Collective processes have been in place in other industries and
other intergovernmental situations or structures for over a century now.
How to expedite decision making is well known, or should be by
anyone on these forums.  The internet is WHERE and the HOW
in which to produce expedient decision making processes, and
has been demonstrated as such during these discussions/debates.
It is just that some don't like that process, but have yet to produce
a viable or logical argument to using the internet itself to do so.
This I find utterly amazing.

>
>
> 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.

  The "How to do it" has as I said above already been demonstrated
on a limited basis, but would easily scale if expanded properly using
already known and in use technology on the internet itself.

> 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.

  Agreed to an extent.  The problem is getting everyone to agree or
at least a majority to do so.

>
>
> 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'?

  The formality is well defined already as was pointed out in the July
Reston meeting.  Stakeholder = Any internet user.

> 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?

  As I and others on these very forums have pointed out that definition
is well known, it is just that there are some that wish to "Classify" or
segment that definition to suite a particular ends that is not necessarily
in the interest of the majority of the Stakeholders.

>
>
>    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.

  Yes likely those that are not borne or are not yet users of the internet
would be the only tow categories that could be legitimately excluded.

>
>
> kerry

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208