Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann an institution?

[Paul Lehto]

On 9/21/09, Dr. Francis MUGUET <muguet at mdpi.net> wrote:
> Dear Paul
>> For the reasons in the above paragraph, I can't agree at all with
>> Francis Muguet's comment below suggesting that "noble principles"
>> discussions waste bandwidth.
>>
> You did not read me correctly,  sorry , I wrote
>
> /Declarations of noble principles *everybody agrees upon*/
>
[snip]
> What is needed is not to discuss issues that are well agreed upon
> again and again, but to go towards the difficult topics

Dear Francis,

My post, however, still applies to you (as it does to all) because
even principles that are AGREED UPON by a relevant community of
people, most especially the agreed-upon important or fundamental
principles, are the very ones that must be called upon and applied
frequently -- and there can be some room for debate about how even a
universally agreed upon principle specifically applies on the ground,
its scope of effect, and so forth.  Thus the principles are always
applicable within their scope.

What you specifically said was: "Bla bla should be avoided as well as
declarations of noble principles everybody agrees upon, but that takes
all the bandwidth required
for an effective discussion."

The paragraph above seems to me to clearly suggest that both bla bla
and noble principles everybody agrees upon (or doesn't express their
disagreement with publicly) should not be using up bandwidth when we,
as you clarify in your reply, move on to the more difficult salient
issues.  If that's the case, then I would say that you misapprehend
the role of noble principles everyone agrees on.  That role can be
described as follows:

Universally agreed principles, like all principles, act like
guidestars do for seafaring mariners (such as the North Star).  Those
of us traversing the seas of new or difficult issues will surely lost
in due time if we do not keep the guidestars (principles) in mind or
sight at all times.

So, yes, of course, we should reach the difficult issues.  But if your
posts Francis can be read in any sense (please feel free to clarify)
to suggest that we "move on" from the standpoint of rights and
principles and sink down to (relative) minutiae without those agreed
upon rights and principles there to continue to act as guides whenever
they apply, then your specific procedure for getting to the hard
issues is defective in a major way, to the extent it excludes further
use of bandwidth on "agreed upon" principles.

It would be, for example, malpractice for any good lawyer to fail to
consider constitutional  issues in many cases.  Constitutions are one
type of "noble principle" that everybody SEEMS to agree upon, but in
actual action and point of fact, are often ignored as inconvenient, or
even opposed.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

PS The only way the noble principles might legitimately not enter into
discussions would be their complete inapplicability.  But
inapplicability is not created by the conversion, for example, of free
speech issues into technical computer or internet lingo.

 --
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
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