>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Milton Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Allisat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: "Mark R. Measday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Jonathan Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Jonathan Zittrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Membership]how do we reach it? + avoiding capture + good, bad or > ugly? >References: <Pine.LNX.3.93.990218123603.21746C-100000@marietta> > >Bob, > >Apologies for the following digression, which is neither as concise or >clear as yours, but the response is partly to you and partly in response >to Professor Mueller's question on the social or administrative utility >of ICANN. Onwards to the Bastille, perhaps? I understand that Mr Bush, >at the French revolution bicentennial, gave back the keys De Toqueville >or someone had pocketed when quietly exiting the country at the time. So >one could open the door. > >'Capture' as incribed in ICANN's fears and documentation, is perceptual, >outside of preconceived political passions. It's not wanting 'them' to >be in charge, unless it's purely code for something I don't understand. >I.e. it's a disguised wish for continuance in the same form with the >same structure, by, rightly or wrongly, disallowing others. One >person's good is another person's bad, very clearly on a economic or >political level, usually on a cultural and individual level. Therefore >'no-capture' will be bad for someone else. Who to choose from a >disinterested point of view? And if we are merely self interested, how >can we make any decisions about what is good or bad? > >The huge void of possibility the internet represents, into which many >people injected their hopes and aspirations, will be filled and it is >obvious that not all those hopes, often mutually contradictory, will be >fulfilled. One of the necessary and historically observable facts of the >'professionalisation' of any new technical or intellectual arena is that >the generalists and quirky individualists who make up the original >diaspora of innovation in that area are replaced by functional >specialists with discrete responsibilities and tasks, who do nothing >else. As such the innovation tends to stop, as no-one has the broad view >any longer or is rewarded for lateral and innovative thought. It's an >age old argument concerning the added value of specialization. > >If company hierarchies were good at inventing new products and services, >all the new things would come from them. If bureaucracies were good at >furthering technical innovation, TCP/IP would have been put together by >an ITU steering committee. But it usually comes from somewhere else. I >can only think of James Black, a scientist who went from inventing the >drugs to running the company as someone who made that transition very >successfully. I am sure there are others, but in a minority, if >individual capitalist-entrepreneurs are omitted. It remains the case >that the administrative treaties arranging postal rates, a global >response to a previous communications revolution, when cheap writing >utensils came into common use and now administered by a rather anonymous >secretariat in Berne Switzerland, were largely drafted not by postmen >or letter writers, but by numerous professional scribes. There is always >the example of what I believe used to be called the International >Telegraph Union, too. > >So it is likely that the 'professionalisation' of internet governance >will proceed by dropping one constituency, the original entrepreneurs >and friends, and replacing them with a new, technocratic and specialist, >group, or groups, better acquainted with the politico-legal complexities >of bedding down a perceived innovation within the existing corpus of >international conduct and national jurisdiction. > >Was that capture? It was unavoidable and necessary. > >It does mean that the original idealism, where a new form of >communication would change everything, is disappointed. gTLDs didn't >overthrow -or haven't yet overthrown- the national jurisdiction systems >of the world in a spew of ecommerce so hugely profitable that new global >legal institutions were set up to deal with it, WIPO honourably >excepted. The vision of global commerce, so simple and alluring for the >large IT providers, will become somewhat attenuated by the need for >local differentiation, the market's desire for variety and originality, >and local regulation. Most further innovation will come from outside the >United States. The regulation problem of ccTLDs is roughly that of >postoffice and advertising regulation, if the national registries grow, >and once the kinks and economic loops of ISPs excess charges are ironed >out. Only 150 million people have access, 7 billion don't. For the >former people it is a hugely energising and broadening force. When the >latter have it, it won't be any more. Like the ability to write in the >Middle Ages as compared to now. > >Is that capture? It is unavoidable and necessary. > >So when you come to look at Professor Mueller's iconoclastic questions >below: Is > >1. ICANN an unmitigated disaster and to be resisted, ignored or even >destroyed? >2. ICANN imperfect and problematical but worth investing time and effort >in attempts to improve it and get it >on the right track? >3. ICANN reasonably responsive and doing a difficult job as best as >could be expected? > >it all depends on whether you think an international secretariat, >basically arbitrating between the different demands made on it by >different constituencies and responding to the modern equivalent of the >question "What is the price of a postage stamp and how much do I keep in >my country?" is a disaster, unfortunate or necessary. Your own position >will determine the answer. So, I would argue that 'capture' is purely a >question of viewpoint, not fact. > >Were I an internet-aware citizen of a North American country responding >to the questions above, I would say disaster, as the opportunity to >exchange gifts with the rest of the world was lost; in a isolationist >moment, the vision was lost in a combat between east and west coast, >integrative and instrumental motivations and something that was so >obviously American was not branded and sent abroad as a shining exemplar >of US ingenuity and achievement, but repossessed and taken home again. >As a businessman or lawyer, I would say that its imperfections and >problems reflect its environment and origins. Postel was the neutral >administrator, an ironclad squeezed between the tectonic plates of US >defence, business and academic interests and the uncomprehending (until >recently) outside world. It, or something, will return to that. Were I a >Chinese or Martian diplomat, I would be quietly laughing that the harder >you fear (capture), the more likely it is to happen. The structure would >become a large number of people associated for the purpose of avoiding >capture and then advertising they had been captured by their own >fear....... > >Personally, I had hoped that some other schema or business model could >be found, compounding the human decency and idealism of the fathers of >the Internet with the needed publicly perceived structuring of the >industry in a manner that would allow other organizations - the UN, >national civil services, NGOs and suchlike - to restructure using the >new communications technologies and the new paradigm to escape the >Weberian machines they are forced to inhabit. That cannot be the case if >ICANN is just another bureaucracy. Indeed, even the metaphor 'business >model' is probably precluded'. > >I suspect now that is rather like hoping death or taxes will go away, >but it's nice to hope. > >Ad interim, I would propose that anyone in broad agreement with the >above should make sure that Jeff Williams is proposed and seconded for >the Final ICANN Board when it comes into existence, as the person who >has made more people think about the real issues - whether directly >related to ICANN or not - of identity, persuasiveness, one-to-many, >many-to-one, vested authority, the creation of a dynamic future by >loose association with reality rather than a static, tedious negotiated >present, than anyone else. The others were doing their jobs, he was >leading, galvanizing, irritating, questioning, facilitating. Put simply, >I am sure he would liven up the meetings, even if you have to do the >occasional Turing test on him, so I hope other incipient board members >will vote him in too, and encourage their voters to vote for him, in the >case they get elected. > >Best regards, > >Mark Measday > >Bob Allisat wrote: > >> Jonathon Weinberg wrote: >> + I'll cast another vote for the proposition that avoiding capture >> + should be a primary goal. >> >> I, Bob Allisat wrote: >> > It's already been captured. By Zittrain, Sims, >> > IBM and the rest of these creeps. Time to wake >> > up and realize what's happened. The capture >> > is a full success and what is actually being >> > discussed is how to avoid recapture by citizens >> > at large. That is "We the People". And the only >> > persons who are taking these sham procedings >> > seriously are those who have been co-opted into >> > the virtual coup d'etat. >> >> Mark Measday commented >> + What would not constitute capture by these criteria for some >> + group or other? Capture is therefore a meaningless way of saying >> + that 'they' have it and 'we' haven't. But the essence of the >> + purportedly democratic structure here is that this kind of >> + alternance between 'we' and 'they' take place. Therefore capture >> + within some democratic structure might well be advisable, even >> + laudable. Bob, one could imagine a scenario where the 'creeps' >> + are encouraged by the 'people' to come forward and part with some >> + of their 'cash' which can then be 'spent' by the people. As such >> + it might be interesting for the 'people' to encourage 'capture', >> + in the sense that the wodges of 'cash' would not otherwise be >> + forthcoming. In the same way as Scotsmen used to assault policemen >> + on cold nights to get a night in the cells and avoid death by >> + hypothermia, in fact. >> + >> + Worried in Europe. >> >> Everyone's worried. Even here in North America. The problem >> as I see it is just as you put it. People (once again as in >> "We The...") are quite content to have the creeps (perhaps >> myself among this category!) expend their various brands of >> more or less manic and prodigious energies furthering the >> general good. So long, so it seems, there is a way to exit >> creeps that get way too creepy and enter others with fresh >> approaches to keep it all on the permanent up and up >> evolutionarily speaking (whew!). Like let there be change >> or the potential for change minus major bloodshed is all >> folks seem to want. >> >> Problem is... capture that is first involuntary and second >> appears to be a permanent pain in the collective ass tends to >> cause restless natives leading to riotous mobs, storming of >> sundry Bastilles and so on and so forth. Which appears to be >> not the best way of changing things though it may well be the >> most effective method. From time to time. Right now, listening >> to a really fine rendering of Chopin's nocturn something or >> others, I really hope we could avoid all that messiness and opt >> for consensus, power sharing, round tables and all that rot. >> Instead I figure more grief is ahead for one and all. Pity. >> >> Bob Allisat >> >> Free Community Network _ [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat >> http://robin.fcn.net > >-- > > > >Mark Measday >__________________________________________________________________________ > >Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] >UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 >French tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92 >Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.363.88.00 > >L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 >__________________________________________________________________________ -- "How gratifying for once to know... that those up above will serve those down below" - S. Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719 Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
