Kevin, > In every political system, there are functions which must be > performed in order for that system to preserve itself and to > extend its influence. It is always difficult to specify all of > the essential functions, and, fortunately, it is not necessary > that we do so in most cases. There is a feedback loop which > announces any significant failure to perform one or more > functions. > > The noise about "individual representation" in "Internet > Governance" is one such feeback loop. The particular function > in which this feedback loop is grounded is that of "legitimation," > a system maintenance task in which the "system" enlists support > from the relevant set of political actors, using the rubric that > "this government is your legitimate government; work with us." > > In other words, ICANN should recognize an individual constituency > (or otherwise increase the perceived power of individuals as such) > if and only if it improves system maintenance and the popular > perception of legitimacy. Nothing more is necessary; nothing less > will be effective. > Your cynicism is magnificent! The only *internal reason any system needs to have regard for its members is they serve as a cheap early-warning-system; the only external reason is to keep the 'plebs' happy with the systems actions that impinge on them. Give them a tin whistle and a little can of oil and tell em they have to keep the machinery running, and by gum, thats what they're happy to do, peeping and wiping while the system gets on with its higher agenda. Machiavelli U has graduated its first distance-ed cum-laude student. Dyson's reply to Nader and Love suggests there are grounds for reading ICANN in this light: the higher agenda is to take care of NSI, and thus, she says, it is "illegitimate" to jibe at the finicking details of its campaign to build up broad support for 'nationalizing' the root server databases. It is certainly difficult to find another explanation of her whining evasion of their direct questions. But there may be more going on than I appreciate (is NSF/NTIA really in a hole with its cooperative agreements? Is the USA intending to declare itself a virtual global gov?), and maybe its only your didactic style which adds this flavour to your message. A more generous conceptualization, however, might have pointed out that the feedback loop exists *regardless whether its a declared function of the system or not, and that, indeed, a critical distinction between 'technical administration' and 'governance' is whether the existence of the loop is simply accepted or explicitly made part of the operation. (In other words, as soon as the White Paper made any mention of 'representation' it put the NewCo in a governance role. A technical body would simply *observe whether some decision caused an outcry, and make appropriate policy adjustments with its own oilcan.) It would seem to follow that ICANN *has to accept what we may call the 'public' function as essential (i.e., of equal weight to its other administrative tasks) rather than as 'feedback' (which connotes a secondary or derivative status). While it has *proposed to implement that function by means of 'consituencies,' but if the membership is not in fact satisfied with that schema (particularly as a means of ensuring that ICANN does not simply replace NSI acronymically, while equally monopolistic-minded wolves parade in sheep's cloning), it needs to keep trying. In other words, the more accurate rubric is "this government is your legitimate government; we work for you." Is any more necessary; can anything less be effective? Cheers, kerry
