=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f?=. : Re: Re: [governance] Just for fun Question

[Dan Krimm]

At 1:29 PM +0200 5/7/07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:

>That being said, I believe that the prevailing modus operandi and vivendi
>of the Internet calls for no debates (for fun) as Dan is urging.
>
>Let's not forget that hawks of classes (I doubt if Dan is not fronting for
>them) ar lurking around and are eager to tap from strong ideas issued by
>debates (just for fun) and propound their hegemony while perpetuating
>their agenda.



Hmm, I'm not sure exactly how to take these comments.  I'm not fronting for
anyone, certainly (other than having a connection to NCUC), and I'm not
typically in the business of trying to stifle debate (just the opposite,
typically -- I have a hard time resisting opportunities to debate on topics
of interest to me).  I am also a "long tail" guy, and abhor the idea of
classes -- and I oppose policies in the U.S. that tend to increase their
prevalence, especially policies that increase economic divides (which belie
the myth that the U.S. is a "classless society" -- I am fully aware that
this is a crock, and I am deeply troubled by that underlying truth).  You
have apparently not bothered to Google my modest web site.

However, I am ultimately aiming to be a realist when it comes to public
policy, and I guess I see no utility in having people pick a location for a
world capital (for the Internet, or generally -- note that I would discount
such a distinction on principle, in the first place).  I'm also a voting
member of National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences in the U.S., the
presenter of the Grammy Awards, one of the most pernicious popularity
contests in the music business which has virtually nothing to do with
genuine merit (at least in terms of voting process).  The symbolism of this
location question seemed to me just about the same thing -- another
popularity contest best suited to self-promotion of one sort or another,
and more likely to divide us than to bring us together.

Here's another answer to the Just for Fun question:

Anywhere but the U.S., at least until we get our own house in order.  It
would be presumptuous of me to suggest a particular location elsewhere.

Okay?

:-)

But what is really more important than location is what the *political
process* would be for broad accountability within any such capital.  Where
in the world is political accountability in full force today?  That's where
I would want the location to be.

For example, the chief problem with ICANN is not its physical location in
the U.S., but rather the MoU with the USG and the systematically unbalanced
skew of its fiat-based "multi-stakeholder" structure.  Structure, not
place, is most important in governance, when place is made less important
by the very technologies of the telecommunication network itself.

So my real aim was not to stifle debate, but to take it to a more
productive (IMHO) context.  Talking about place just juices up the
competitive dynamics, and encourages people to think about a "class of
place" (or perhaps even a "hegemony of place") in the process.  I'm very
uninterested in promoting nationalism or hegemony in any form.

Dan

PS -- If my intent were actually to stifle debate, it would seem to have
been a failure.  That would be a good thing.
____________________________________________________________
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