[governance] Where are we going?

[George Sadowsky]

Back to the future (after many interventions that came while I was asleep) .

The .xxx debacle is a symptom of a real problem that will continue to 
assert itself.  Now forget about the details of .xxx and go back to 
Karl's original question - what do we want in the future?


At 6:02 PM -0400 4/5/07, Milton Mueller wrote:
>  >>> George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> 4/5/2007 3:08 PM
>>>>
>>I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition
>>that we live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a
>>global phenomenon.
>
>No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world that
>animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such a
>chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing all
>intolerances cumulatively on everyone."
>
>Try to understand that, please.


I understand the reasoning, but I differ regarding the remedy. 
Omitting the extreme positions, which Bertrand has aptly described, 
in a multicultural environment there will be disputes over specific 
sensitive labels, whether having to do with sex, religion, the king, 
or whatever.  I think that ultimately some organization is going to 
inject itself into the label-semantics business (which is quite 
different from the actual content business), and I would rather see 
it be a revision of, say, the current GAC structure than the UN 
General Assembly, or the ITU, or UNESCO, or some other body.   The 
danger is that the external body, once being given or taking a 
mandate to get into judging top-level names, will be tempted to get 
into judging content also.

I think it is not realistic that the growth of the TLD name space can 
avoid this.  If I am right, let's plan for a transition that is 
broadly and globallly acceptable, and that retains maximum freedom 
and autonomy for the Internet's degrees of freedom and the rest of 
ICANN's functionality, rather than risking their erosion by 
stubbornly adhering to a principle with respect to top level label 
semantics.

>
>
>The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly
>pit one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD creation
>as a conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas
>rather than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which
>different nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according to
>their own norms.
>
>>A minimum of decency and respect for the
>>sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the
>>evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more
>>productive
>
>I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point.
>There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ conduct.
>But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for
>systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented by
>law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression is
>seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource
>assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect for
>sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of my
>way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, there
>are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few
>insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global
>machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge
>the non-violent expressions of others.

Insensitive jerks have a way of magnifying the destructive power of 
their insensitivity.  Small wars have been started by insensitive 
jerks.  Closer to home, Brett Fawcett reports that the GAC has just 
closed its public discussion forum because of obscenities posted to 
it by some insensitive jerks.  We have  huge decency and sensitivity 
deficits in many walks of life, including in the Internet community, 
and we are paying for it.  Let's not adopt policies which threaten to 
increase these deficits.

>
>Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the disagreement.
>The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of
>community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into
>contractual content regulation. It was about this.

According to the Board members  who commented, assuming that they are 
telling the truth that's not correct.  They argued that the content, 
and the label, did not influence their decision.   (If I were on the 
Board, I would have thought differently.)  I think that the community 
support issue was a real one, but to be fair it did not appear to be 
the subject of much study by anyone, just claims in both directions.


____________________________________________________________
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