[governance] Where are we going?

[Izumi AIZU]

Hi Tom,

I think my words below quoted were not as sufficient as should be.

My original intent was, a new GTLD proposal should be put in place
only when there is a strong consensus by the community, in this case
ICANN constituencies. Yet as we all saw, that proposal could not gain
the consensus, rather, majority of the Board said No. I think we should
follow that decision, in this case as no consensus to put forward the
proposal was reached.

[Correct me if I am wrong] I think, your comment on Milton's recognized
infinite regress may continue, unless we reach meta-consensus
on the general framework of introducing the new TLDs, which I am
not sure if could ever reach, but should try hard. For that, in the long run,
I tend to agree with what Karl is suggesting  - to have many TLDs as
long as they do no harm technically.

Until that be agreed by consensus, only limited number of TLDs be
introduced, in which case some degree of cultural, social, value
judgement might be inevitable, again, unless we reach a strong
consensus not to do so, which is very unlikely. By "we" I mean
not only supply side of DNS, but also individual users, non-commercial
users, business users, and governments/GAC etc.

Though I like ICANN to be as much a narrow technical coordination
entity as possible, the reality it is surrounded by does not allow that, and we
must see that reality composed of political, economical, social,
cultural, ethical, if you like, and technical dimensions, all together.

Just sticking in technical area only and live in hopes and dreams does
not give us any solution I am afraid.

Of course, I like to see much more innovations to come.

Thanks,

izumi

2007/4/7, Tom Vest <tvest at eyeconomics.com>:
>
> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> > I also think "bottom up consensus" in a community usually means that
> > if there is very strong opposition/dissent from some
> > communities/stakeholders remains, in good faith, then even that is a
> > minority, we should respect that and not take decision based on simple
> > majority even though the majority could not accept with the reasons
> > given from the minority.
>
> Hi Izumi,
>
> Without commenting on this particular issue, your suggestion runs
> afoul of the same kind of infinite regress that Milton recognized a
> couple of days back. If one assumes that Milton is also speaking for
> a "minority of stakeholders" who strongly disagree with the latest
> decision, how do you reconcile the conflict?
>
> TV
>
> On Apr 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> >> Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are
> >> they what societies (with active participation of Governments)
> >> have accepted at particular points in time.
> >
> > This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or
> > what are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of
> > people like you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly
> > advocate
> > for a free internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and
> > institute that. Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit
> > poassively back and accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We
> > must actively shape and define them, based on our knowledge and our
> > conscience.  That is the business we are in here, isn't it?
>
>
>


-- 
                      >> Izumi Aizu <<

             Institute for HyperNetwork Society
             Kumon Center, Tama University
                             * * * * *
              << Writing the Future of the History >>
                               www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance