P.S. Stef: You keep presuming I'm advocating centralization.
Please do not pidgeon-hole my ideas to fit your expectations.
I'm advocating quite the opposite: Decentralized democracy,
composed of individuals practicing reponsible self rule from
a global sense of our deep interactivity, a sensibility that the
global Internet could help to induce if liberated from ICANN.
Thanks,
-ken
>Hello Ned --
>
>At 12:27 -0600 08/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>>Wrongaroonie, Einar --
>>The goal is a decentralized network of independent democracies,
>>just as we need individuals practicing reponsible self rule from a
>>common global sense of our deep interactivity. That how genuine
>>freedom and democracy can work best. Isn't it time for us humans
>>to outgrow our addiction to despots? Or do we still fear adulthood?
>>-- ken
>>
>>Ken Freed, Publisher
>>Media Visions Journal
>>http://www.media-visions.com
>>
>>"Deep literacy makes global sense."
>
>
>I don't think you can contest with me about love of or distaste for despots,
>so why do you make this an issue.
>
>My point is very simple:
>
>What is the correct view of the Internet in terms of analogies with
>other phenomena that we see in our universe?
>
>My view is the the Internet, with its edge control and many
>participants who both contribute information to and consume
>information from other edge based participants, is more like a free
>economy, in terms of its need for organized central control.
>
>In this new millennium, after the last in which hundreds of millions
>of people were slaughtered in fighting to see who would be in control
>of various economies, including the global economy, why should we now
>shift to fighting over control of the Internet. Why don't we take
>some lessons from our experiences with economies and markets which
>must remain free and open in order to function properly.
>
>So, looking at your proposals backwards, if a global internet constitution
>(for governing the Internet ) is a proper idea, why is it not also a
>good idea for governing the global economy?
>
>The basic problem is that all of the real driving decisions are made
>at the edges of the net (just as with the global economy), where
>people set up their computers as they individually wish to set them
>up, in spite of the fact that a lot of vendors are doing their best
>to in effect, convert all this freedom of choice into the original
>IBM Computer model with some central processor in control of the edge
>people's information access and flows.
>
>The MSN Windoze paradigm is that of central control, with central
>singular points of control. like PASSPORT, and ICANN to decide for us
>what we should be looking at. It maps the IBM central control
>paradigm onto the Internet.
>
>The fact is that a lot of people just believe that there has to be a
>control point of control of things, or they will fall apart!
>
>In my view, what we have been losing, and are still losing more of
>every day in the Internet is basic trust in the net, in its service
>providers, and in each other, as we are all producers and consumers
>of the words that we use to exchange ideas.
>
>MSN offers to induce trust by registering all of us so MSN can vouch
>for our trustability. but, on close inspection, trust is not
>transitive, so why should I trust MSN to tell me that I can trust you?
>
> [Side note: Trust is transitive in Spy Networks, but not otherwise!]
> [This is why most of our "Internet security tools" depend on
>transitivity.]
> [Just think about where crypto technology came from;-]
>
>That the currency of the Internet is ideas, instead of sovereign
>coinage, does not change the underlying basis of the power of the
>Internet to self organize and to function without some kind of
>centralized trust inducer. And to be sure, a constitution will
>result in forming some kind of government, just because that is what
>constitutions do -- they specify the structure of a governing system
>that has a central point of control, such as the United States, which
>the EU is now trying to emulate with what they think is a more
>enlightened way to deploy bureaucracies for the common good of
>controlling the actions of its citizens and its markets. I wish them
>all good luck!
>
>Indeed, the entire world is struggling to form more perfect unions of
>people and communities, (typically with someone one chosen to be "in
>charge";-)... You are only proposing that this someone should be
>chosen by some other means than that chosen by the ICANN process. I
>don't like the ICANN process either, but the solution is not to
>replace it with yet another flawed system of centralizing control of
>the use of names, and numbers, and ideas and information in general.
>
>In our world, there are many instances of self organized social and
>economic structures that do not require, and would not be enhanced,
>with the addition of any central controller, no matter how
>democratically that controller might be chosen.
>
>I realize that there is a very large proportion of the world
>community that suffers great discomfort when they do not find someone
>in control, from whom they can obtain permissions to do what they do,
>or denial of permission, which gives them comfort in the removal of
>their needs to be responsible for controlling their own behavior.
>
>But, I much prefer the Jesuit Principle:
>
> "It is easier to beg forgiveness than to get permission!"
>
>Now, given that I cannot support your proposal for building any kind
>of central government for the Internet, you might ask what I think
>are the great underlying principles and the problems to solve.
>
> A fair question, Eh?
>
>Well, what I see is that as the net has grown at its exponential rate
>since the inception of the original ARPANET in 1970, it has now
>gained sufficient mass to find that something is missing at the heart
>of the net which happens to be distributed at the edges, where the
>driving and governing decisions of our users reside.
>
>Yes, the heart of the net is distributed to is edges! This was done
>very deliberately by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn when they devised IP and
>then TCP.
>And, I am sure that they then did not then foresee what all this would
>lead to,
>and I hold not brief that they should have foreseen it all at that time!
>I certainly did not foresee it then.
>
>(I did not even understand what they were doing then;-)...
>
>Cutting to the chase scene, what I see now is a failure of TRUST, in
>that over time, we are finding that everything we see on our screens,
>just might be false, including mail that says it was mailed by our
>trusted friends. And we are never totally sure that the web site
>pages we are looking at are really from where they say they are from,
>or trust that what they say is really the truth.
>
>Now, the problem is to find a way to induce trust into the net,
>with tools that are distributed to the users on the edge of the net.
>
>Your answer to my previously unasked question here, is to create a
>centralized governing system (which should be "democratic" in its
>formational structure), to induce trust among the users at the edge
>of the net.
>
>And my next question is:
>
> "When have you ever seen trust to be induced in such a manner?"
> And, note well, trust can be and is induced over time in real life.
>
>Perhaps it will help to contemplate what you know about "trust
>induction" in general.
>
>It is my humble opinion that the issues of trust (and distrust) among
>users of the net is what needs to be sorted out, just because when
>the IP/TCP protocol was adopted, it created an edge controlled matrix
>of individual users who in fact have control of their edge based
>choices. The Internet is "Power to the People", in spades!
>
>The IP/TCP protocols dealt with the trust issue by placing
>responsibility for guaranteeing that what you receive from me is what
>I sent to you, at the end points of our exchanges of information
>using IP. Nothing in between our end points has a role in providing
>this trust.
>
>TCP, at the end points, takes care of the lack of trust that is inherent
>in the deliberate design of IP. IP is prone to error, by design!
>
>Now, just as MIME was the same (tagging and bagging) idea as IP, but
>at the application interoperability level instead of at the system
>interoperability level, what seems to be missing is the trust
>building functions that TCP gives to the IP/TCP pair. But, this is
>at a higher level, about mere assurance that what I received is in
>fact exactly what was sent.
>
>So, what we are now (collectively) realizing is that something is
>missing, and we are looking for a way to add something to our systems
>that will provide a remedy for our lack of trust.
>
>My sense is that what is missing is trust, and our instinctive
>understanding of what trust is, and how it works, and how it is
>induced, and how it can be mechanized for deployment across the
>Internet, are all part of what needs to be distilled and deployed
>into our Internet environment.
>
>I simply do not see how you can do this with some kind of democratic
>government of people who will also be external to the net, and will
>just be an organization of a supposed central controlling body (all
>be it constitutional and democratic) that is also just another
>organized set of users at the edges of the net.
>
>My sense of the basic problem goes all the way back to the great mind
>experiment of Rene' Descartes, who asked himself:
>
> "Suppose that everything I sense is false; What do I know?"
>
>What I see is that this very question, though not yet well
>articulated in the minds of Internet users, is what is confronting us
>here. The question is:
>
> "Why should I trust anything I sense from the net?"
> "We all know and trust that it might be false!"
>
>This question is suddenly very real for everyone on the net, so we
>are all now engaged in the deep thinking of Rene Descartes, but
>without the benefit of doing so with his clearly articulated question.
>
>So, I herewith present you with the well articulated question;-)...
>
> "Suppose everything I sense from the net is false? What do I know?"
>
>The answers will take us through the growing Internet walls of
>distrust and through the next Internet paradigm shift where-in we
>suddenly find a way to induce trust to complement the IP-like tagging
>and bagging provided by MIME, which allows us to send anything we
>choose to anyone on the net, which means we can pretend to be anyone
>we choose and to say anything we choose, whether it is true or not.
>
>That great sinking feeling you are sensing is the draining away of
>trust from your current conceptual model of what you think the
>Internet is (or was;-)...
>It is part of the process of shifting your paradigms;-)...
>
>I will leave you now to enjoy your shift! Onward!...\Stef
>
>
>
>At 12:27 -0600 08/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>>Wrongaroonie, Einar --
>>The goal is a decentralized network of independent democracies,
>>just as we need individuals practicing reponsible self rule from a
>>common global sense of our deep interactivity. That how genuine
>>freedom and democracy can work best. Isn't it time for us humans
>>to outgrow our addiction to despots? Or do we still fear adulthood?
>>-- ken
>>
>>Ken Freed, Publisher
>>Media Visions Journal
>>http://www.media-visions.com
>>
>>"Deep literacy makes global sense."
>>
>>
>>
>> >And then we can undertake to create a global constitution for the
>> >Global Economy, and then take on any other edge controlled
>> >environments which also surely\ need to have a constitution, to apply
>> >Centralized Democratic Government.
>> >
>> >Enjoy your trip;-)...
>> >
>> >At 12:47 -0600 07/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>> >>Seems to me any effort to work within ICANN
>> >>to acheive "network democracy" is innately an
>> >>act of self-deception, continuing the public lie
>> >>that ICANN is a legitimate government. It isn't.
>> >>
>> >>There has never been a public vote to privatise
>> >>our public Internet. There has never been a public
>> >>vote to grant any governance power to ICANN. The
>> >>emperor is clothed in a fabric of veiled delusions.
>> >>
>> >>I still advocate a global Internet constitution, so we
>> >>have a governmewnt of laws not committees.
>> >>
>> >>Ken Freed
>> >>Media Visions Journal
>> >>http://www.media-visions.com
>> >>
>> >>"Deep literacy makes global sense"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >(fixed)
>> >> >
>> >> >>Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 08:21:30 -0500
>> >> >>From: "ooblick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >>Subject: Re: Re: Why wake up? (Re: [IFWP] Is this list up?
>>(Test, ignore,
>> >> >>sorry))
>> >> >>To: "Dan Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >>MIME-Version: 1.0
>> >> >>Content-Type: text/plain
>> >> >>Message-ID:
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Sep 2001 12:18:55.0359 (UTC)
>> >> >>FILETIME=[EE94E8F0:01C13604]
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Hear hear. So i am going on vacation. The fix was in from the
>>get go
>> >> >>and all we were was pawns to lend legitimacy to their fabricated
>>claims
>> >> >>of consensus.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>See you next week. I'm going diving.
>> >> >>>---- Original Message ---
>> >> >>>From: Dan Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >>>Cc:
>> >> >>>Subject: Re: Why wake up? (Re: [IFWP] Is this list up? (Test,
>>ignore,
>> >> >>>sorry))
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Well to counter your argument I would say that I went to IFWP
>>meetings
>> >> >>>all over
>> >> >>>the globe, went to an ICANN meeting or two. I worked on the
>>at-large
>> >> >>>issue in
>> >> >>>good faith in the first Membership Advisory Committee. I
>>believe I was
>> >> >>>very awake
>> >> >>>during the entire process, with gusts to diligent. What did all
>>that
>> >> >>>work get?
>> >> >>>not much I think. I am not funded to work on lost causes.
>> >>Those that go to
>> >> >>>Montevideo are funded to act and more than a couple of them
>>will have a
>> >> >>>pre-set
>> >> >>>agenda. Unless you want to fund everyone on this list to show up
>> >>and make a
>> >> >>>presence felt, I think sleeping is the more economical course.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Marc Schneiders wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Why we should wake up fast? Quite a few people are on their way to
>> >> >>>> Montevideo right now. A couple of them may try to
>>determine a lot of
>> >> >>>> things on their own there without real input from those
>>affected. The
>> >> >>>> ALSC preliminary report leaves not much hope for a change to the
>> >> >>>> better. Now, if it would be a good, thorough, well argued
>>report, in
>> >> >>>> whi
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> > "But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico dress on
>> >> > it and call it Florence, a pig is still a pig."
>> >> > -- Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp. et al., 2001 U.S. Dist.
>> >> > LEXIS 8962, (S. D. Tex., 2001).
>> >> >
>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
