Michael, > I think your questions fall under what they mean by "procedure" i.e. "not > substance". Their view seems to be that procedural regularity is not a > priority at this stage. I don't really understand why that's the view, > and I don't share it, but it does seem to have persuaded some serious > people (cf. Randy Bush's comments to me in the dnso discuss list). > > In the law business, it long ago became conventional wisdom that > 'procedure IS substance'. That is especially true in the formative stages > of institutions. In my most optimistic moments I surmise that people from > other disciplines are more short-term and bottom-line oriented, and this > difference in professional socialization may account for some of the > apparent disconnect. I'm glad to have this explanation -- it makes Joe Sim's message (which immediately followed yours, in the Digest at least) particularly comprehensible: > > Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:45:11 -0400 > From: "Joe Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Esther Dyson from >Ralph Nader ... > ... > Jay, you're back! Short retirement. Let me see if I got this straight: > you and 6 of your best friends decided that this was an important > distinction, even though it didn't exist anywhere else in the original > documents, and because you think it is an important distinction, anyone who > does not is a traitor to democracy and the American way (as defined by > Fenello/BWG/IRSC)? Glad to have you back; the discussion was starting to > trend dangerously toward substance. > -- that is, the Board and its representatives do not regard public discussion of its affairs as requiring their *official recognition Conversely ICANN replies more or less immediately to CPT as one organization to another, even though, in the chairman's words, "since you have not been actively involved in this project over the several years it has been underway, you may not appreciate the power struggles involved." That is, the more involved one is, the more likely one actually uses the net as a medium of communication, and one's concerns can therefore be dropped from consideration. No wonder 'recognition' of an individual domain-names constituency will be difficult to achieve. Catch-22, reformulated: "Governance of the net (substance) is antithetical to governance *by the net (process)." So much for the original documents of the American way. > One tries to stay optimistic. Nevertheless, tie your camel! ============= Roberto, > The practical terms are, though, that while we discuss about > principles and procedures, Rome burns. > > This whole fandango started from the continuous attempt to provide the > perfect answer to the wrong question. The initial need was the > expansion of the Domain Name Space and the transition to a competitive > environment for the domain name registration business. I'd say just the opposite. The inital need was the statement of principles and procedures. By the Dept of Commerce forgetting that it only manages affairs *on behalf of the public*, it created a travesty. The fandago (tho Esther's phrase, "power struggle," is more accurate) is the direct consequence of this 'top-down' creation of a structure which has since been trying desperately (i.e. unprincipledly) to garner a membership to represent. > I confess that, when I was a school student, I liked this > approach. I was very perfectionist, and when I had some schoolwork > to do, I was often restarting from scratch, throwing away all what > I did before and looking for the perfect solution. Then, after > having given back to the teacher several times blank sheets at the > end of the allowed time (and having earned bad notes), I changed my > attitude, and preferred to give partial answers in due time that no > answer at all. The more *practical student slips his first (perfect) solution into the desk. Then, after offering the teacher several 'improvements' and 'experiments,' when the time comes due for final submissions, the original is presented -- to great acclaim. kerry
