[governance] Where are we going?about .xxx

[dina]

Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:    Izumi:
You said: 

"...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place
only when there is a strong consensus by the community."

Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the
word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement.
Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are
expressing. 

OK, let's do some substitution:

"...a [new web site] should be put in place only when there is stong
consensus by the community."

or how about 

"...a [new ISP] should be put in place only when there is a strong
consensus by the community."

or maybe, 

"...a [new Internet-based application] should be permitted only when
there is a strong consensus by the community." 

or maybe, 

"[Izumi should be allowed to send email to the IGC list] only when
there is a strong consensus by the community." 

Do you understand what I am getting at? It seems to obvious to me that
this attitude is wrong-headed. It seems to lack all appreciation of the
concepts of freedom of entry, freedom to try new things, regardless of
what others think. Freedom and innovation flourish precisely when people
do not have to ask a "community" (which may consist of a bunch of
business competitors or powerful people mainly concerned with
maintaining the status quo) for permission to act. Of course, such
freedom cannot involve harm to others, but you are not talking about
"harm" you are talking about "support" or "consensus". 

>>> iza at anr.org 
  4/6/2007 12:22 PM >>>
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 :
>
> 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 
  

 


 
---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels 
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070408/cd6be0af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070408/cd6be0af/attachment.txt>