RE: [ga] primary objectives of the General Assembly mailing list

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 15:22 26/07/2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
> Danny wrote:
> > As such, I would change the wording to read "to ascertain and
> > transmit the views of the membership".
>
> I think that is a well reasoned change to make.  Very often when conducting
> market research, the opinions one is after are not necessarily those of the
> majority.

Joop,
you are confronted here to the question of the purpose of the GA. You 
see it as a lobbying/decision tool by the people, Debbie sees it as a 
living questionnaire to the benefit of the gods who decide what is 
good for the people, I see it as a concerting forum for independent 
authorities.

> To present both sides and their rationales could be very helpful
> to ICANN and the associated bodies in formulating policy changes that take
> into account the views and concerns of all.  I am for this change and unless
> I hear to the contrary, I will incorporate it within the next version.

Nothing prevents you to propose an other vision than Debbie's (may be 
based upon the IDNO bylaws). You failed to impose our views to ICANN 
all over the years. She legitimately tries another approach which is 
to impose her views to the GA in the ICANN best interest in order to 
benefit from the ICANN support. IMHO the real world is interested in 
something else. But who knows?

IMHO everything which may decrease the informal links between 
activists and ICANN will please the NomCom and is a big risk for 
ICANN to lose grip with reality. On another hand, a Chair elected by 
10 persons to represent the world is not serious. We only face here 
that monocratism and democratism are adapted to centralized and 
decentralized networks, but not adapted to a distributed networked 
society which calls for a polycratism we (all the mailing lists) are 
the correct place to invent.

> > Please note that as some list participants are articulating
> > the views of special-interest communities (this is a
> > cross-constituency platform), the output of this body cannot
> > necessarily be viewed as the "views of the ordinary citizen".
>
> One thing I am trying to get across in these rules, and this is something
> that I think is most important to allow freedom for participation, is that
> the people participating are individuals and, unless otherwise stated (as is
> the case with our current Chair posting as himself or as Chair); their
> comments and opinions are their own and not necessarily those of the
> organizations that they generally represent.  This gives each individual the
> right to express an individual opinion whether they be Board member, Chair
> or any other related position.  Thus when I post it is as me, myself and I
> and not as MD of this company, CEO of that, Board Member of this or that or
> the other.

This is one way to address the problem of multiple granularity you 
document. Her approach is a social atomization which insures the gods 
that opposition is divided before it can exist. This is a 
hierarchical vision of a society constrained by rules. Your 
decentralized vision based upon democratic agreement cannot work 
either unless you force everyone to join the GA and to vote. Today, 
the distributed network nature of our society and relations still 
needs a common reference (norms) and agreed visions (standards) but 
this is something we can delegate (automatic statistics) or chose 
(virtuality).

The notion of "ordinary citizens" who are coordinated, and even of 
"individual domain name owners" who cooperate is obsolete. We are and 
form autonomous entities with their own individual or social 
governance and we function by subsidiarity and adhesion. What is of 
interest is that these approaches are very similar to the network 
architecture and political evolutions. What is new and interesting in 
this Debbie/Danny dialogue is the outdated bottom-up approach of an 
obsolete top-down proposition. Will something new result from it? why-not?
jfc