Hi Ken -- So, you are just returning me to my first question;-)...
If some kind of democratic government, supported by a good constitution
is a good thing, why not try it also for the global economy?
I say this because they are both edge controlled environments,
and because economic freedom is so unevenly distributed;-)...
I tend to believe that what is good for the Goose,
is also good for the Gander;-)...
Cheers...\Stef
At 13:45 -0600 09/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>Hi Stef --
>
>The issue of despots arises because ICANN and all other
>such tyrannies across the spectrum, varying by degree, are
>able to function solely because people want to be ruled by
>despots. It's classic codependency, an addictive behavior,
>this need for saviors instead of saving ourselves, this false
>belief we're too sinful or inadequate to live responsibly free.
>Network democracy can help to induce personal democracy.
>
>My efforts are aimed at helping myself and the rest of society
>mature enough so real democracy can have a chance to work.
>It's quite narcissistic, in a way, my hope to live in a better world.
>I am focusing on ICANN because communication weaves the
>web of culture, and ICANN acts at the "core" of global media.
>Internet despotism tends to perpetuate political despotism,
>so I want our Internet to be ruled to democracy, not whim.
>
>Hope this clarfication helps you understand my motives.
>-- 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]
