<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}p{margin:0px}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<P>Eric and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Forcing people to vote is a bad idea, but strongly encouraging them to do so is a good idea.</P>
<P> </P>
<P> What is more oranthological here in your remarks, which have on many occasions in the</P>
<P>past on the "GA" list forum is that simply put oppenness and transparency in under</P>
<P>attack by the GNSO and other ICANN staffers as to it's survival for reasons that have</P>
<P>been stated which seek to further limit openness and transparency within ICANN and thus</P>
<P>limit questions and subsequent decernment upon answers if any. Such therefore directly</P>
<P>discredits ICANN accordingly.<BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Eric Dierker <COGITOERGOSUM@SBCGLOBAL.NET><BR>Sent: Oct 11, 2009 7:37 PM <BR>To: governance <GOVERNANCE@LISTS.CPSR.ORG>, "Cosmin L. Neagu" <COSMIN.NEAGU@ROHOST.COM><BR>Cc: Paul Lehto <LEHTO.PAUL@GMAIL.COM>, toml@communisphere.com <BR>Subject: [governance] Re: SELF - Authority <BR><BR>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV>Thank you Cosmin for this insightful piece that I am lucky enough to share. May we always remember and hold in thought those who cannot. There are three clear sets of chains that keep many from actively participating here, ignorance, poverty and tyranny. If all we do is partially loose the binds in any, we are rewarded tenfold.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>First let me address a few "technical problems that I see".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Should we assume that insulation from the passions and needs of the governed is bad?</DIV>
<DIV>Pure Political Accountability is not always a good thing. Justices come to mind.</DIV>
<DIV>One person One vote does no such thing as assume delegation to an incumbant regime.</DIV>
<DIV>There is a huge gap between a "minority of billions" and the majority making arbitrary decisions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now to the crux of your issue. Direct democratic governance. I think I would reread Locke and More on Utopia and Anarchy then Marx's manifesto. Then I would begin some study of the Federalist Papers. Then I would spend some Socialogy and Anthropology time on the human condition and desire to constantly be making decisions of a technical nature regarding their governance. Probably start with the reality check that most people in the world do not spend more than 1 hour a year excercising their right to vote.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here is your most glaring flaw. Your whole premise is that people must have full control of their government because other people are basically immoral and will not keep the good of the people in mind. See the problem? If people are basically bad then giving more control to more people simply makes it badder.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All governance requires some trust. All choice assumes a free will to make choice. The best models we have are where people are free to chose who they will trust to govern them. What I trust is openness and transparency and accountability. With this I can question. And in my questioning I can discern. And in my discernment I can chose who to follow. So give me an option of processes to chose from, give me a choice of who to provide the process and then keep it open enough to evaluate. Then me and the other minority of voting people can decide. That model works, the world over. Do not force people to vote -- bad idea.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Sun, 10/11/09, Cosmin L. Neagu <I><cosmin.neagu@rohost.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Cosmin L. Neagu <cosmin.neagu@rohost.com><BR>Subject: SELF - Authority<BR>To: "governance" <governance@lists.cpsr.org><BR>Cc: "Paul Lehto" <lehto.paul@gmail.com>, "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net>, toml@communisphere.com<BR>Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:56 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>I started this as a reply to a comment of Paul Lehto saying that the<BR>only way to "guard against the guardians" is to dilute the ultimate<BR>power as much as possible (one person one vote) and hope that in the<BR>end it will all be OK or at least as good as could be expected.<BR>It might be good enough for governing a few millions but as the<BR>governing body "serves" more and more people it tends to develop ways<BR>of insulating itself against it's subjects.<BR>Even if it remains accountable it tends to be slow and inefficient<BR>especially when it comes to conflict resolutions.<BR><BR>I say that this is not good enough, at least not when it comes to<BR>governing the Internet of billions of people. I say we can do better,<BR>at least regarding the ICANN / DNS issue.<BR>The "one person one vote" assumes that everybody willing to delegate<BR>his authority to the central body (let's say ICANN) using their vote.<BR>The ones that do not vote have to accept the majority decision.<BR>This is flawed in several ways:<BR>- it produces potentially billions of people of "minority" while the<BR>majority gets to make arbitrary decisions<BR>- it assumes that the people that don't vote are OK with whatever result<BR>- the process of election is expensive (time, money, fraud, manipulation, ...)<BR><BR>The alternative I proposed was to design a system that would not<BR>delegate the power of the user to ICANN.<BR>Every person could create for himself a asymmetrical key pair (PGP,<BR>public/private encryption key) that he will need in order to make<BR>decisions regarding his domains, his email, ...<BR>ICANN would need to create and maintain the standard of a distributed<BR>software (something similar to the current DNS software) and make sure<BR>it's being run properly.<BR>In short, a system like this would allow ICANN to make sure the<BR>current principles of the Internet are not perverted and it would<BR>allow the users to keep their authority to themselves (not to trust<BR>ICANN or anybody else with their vote).<BR><BR>Even though the technical part might seem confusing it is quite strait<BR>forward. I don't think that conventional methods will do.<BR><BR>Even more, I believe that a system that does not delegate the<BR>authority of the user will eventually emerge... it doesn't actually<BR>need permission from anybody. It only needs critical mass.<BR>ICANN or IGF patronage might just make it happen better and quicker<BR>but I cannot see a future without this happening at all.<BR>It becomes easier and and easier and after all ... these days it only<BR>takes a few good tweets to reach critical mass.<BR><BR><BR>Cosmin<BR></DIV>
<DIV class=plainMail>Regards,<BR><BR><BR><BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR> Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com<BR>Phone: 214-244-4827<BR></ZZZBODY></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>