[wg-review] Thoughts on what has been a fascinating debate in this WG-Review list.

["Domingo Barón" <Dominic.Baron@telematix.co.nz>]

Greetings to all,
I can see that the discussions on this list have been operating on two
distinct levels:
A) that of the practical details needed to define what the ICANN
organisation should do and how  and when it should do it; and
B)  some fundamental questions about how our global society is beginning to
organise itself.
Yes, there is some cross-over between the practical and the philosophical
because some of us are equally at home in both.  For myself, however, I
would like to comment more on the philosophical matters because I enjoy
doing that more.

For instance, Kent Crispin's quotation of that pithy comment, attributed to
Benjamin Franklin, on the intrinsic illogicality of requiring any
qualification for the human right to vote is, in my view, singularly apt
and has provoked in me a few thoughts on where we might be heading.

1) Assuming (a big assumption, I realise) that IPv6 gets implemented in the
not too distant future, isn't it advisable to consider the "planetary"
implications of an addressing system capable of providing trillions of
unique addresses?  Although this may appear unlikely for the foreseeable
future, it is possible to envisage every individual human being on this
planet being endowed at birth with what I propose should be called a
"GLAD", standing for: GLobal ADress.
With each and every individual GLAD would come the intrinsic capability to
assign hundreds of sub-addresses to handle a number of "intelligent"
devices.  In other words, every member of the human species is capable of
being regarded as a "Domain Name".  This is on the verge of becoming a
"Human Right".  Jefsey Morfin suggested as much in two of his messages:
>    -  e-human rights are studied and respected...
and:
>"ICANN is not about human right, democracy, consensus, etc... <snip>
>However the *usage* of Internet calls for Human Rights..."

2) Given the concept of a GLAD, it would be an outrage to allow the
disposition of such an absolute human entitlement to be abused by business,
commercial, ideological, or political interests.  It therefore is our
responsibility, at this incipient stage of the "GLAD" age to be as
far-sighted as we can be and bear in mind that the formulation of the US
Constitution, for example, was preceded by a fascinating debate. [I say
this whilst well aware that the recent US presidential election has clearly
shown the need to update that venerable document to take account of
contemporary technology.]

3) At this point in time, however, we are apparently only considering how
to scale up representation on the ICANN board from seven categories of
interest, or "constituencies" in the ICANN view of that term, to add in a
very much larger "constituency" of DNOs.  Frankly, if we can just cast our
minds forward a few years, don't we risk this being seen as mere tinkering?

4) As has been made clear by Karl Auerbach, the legal constraints under
which the ICANN board functions are not trivial, and they are a product of
the particular constitutional requirements of the locality on the surface
of this planet in which the ICANN happens to be registered as a "legal"
entity.  Doesn't this fact in itself tell us all very clearly that we have
to be thinking seriously of a truly global successor to ICANN?  Now, how do
we go about "registering" a global society?  Should the ICANN be a special
agency within the UN, like UNESCO or WHO?

5) Is the Internet a "Fifth Estate" that will subvert all pre-GLAD age
concepts of governance? I think it is and if ICANN, or an organisation like
ICANN, is needed to administer it then I believe such an organisation needs
a constitution that is properly based on the very technology that has
brought it about. Joop Teernstra's "Polling Booth" is providing us with a
tantalising glimpse of how that might be developed.
But not only technology is required.  There is a need to be radical in our
thinking about democracy.
I single out Bret Busby, Eric Dierker, Cindy Merry, Robin Miller,  Luca
Muscarŕ, and Sotiris Sotiropoulos as having all expressed most eloquently
the yearning for truly democratic methods by which the policies needed to
defend the freedom of  the "Fifth Estate" and promote its equitable use for
the benefit of all humanity may be fomulated. Yet as Kent Crispin reminds
us:
>"ICANN is not a government."
And David Farrar points out:
> "...when membership grows from say 150 to let's say 3,000 or so.  Can you
imagine >what the members discussion list will be like - impossible to
manage."
But what if membership gets into the hundreds of thousands, or millions,
or... gulp!  Structures have to be devised that bring about a symbiosis
between the efficiency of representation at different levels of a  society
and  democratic control over the broad policy directions of that society.
The only practical, working example that I can find on this planet is in
the Federal Constitution of Switzerland.  Could this example be scaled up
to planetary level?  I believe we have no option but to do this.

Best wishes,

          Domingo Barón.



--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html