Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.
Dear Michael and Thomas,
Thomas carried a very good review. Michael point is good too. Now let just
consider we are no more in the restrained universe of the ICANN and of the
small private Internet system (the network has grown, yet the initial
culture is still here: we talk about a billion of users and Jon Postel is
still the reference).
Let consider we are on the world Open Network and that competition applies
to technologies, to lawyers, to working methods. Then *everyhing* made
possible by the source code will tried and will develop if there is a need,
a response, a market, some fun.
There is no more such words as "regulatory" and "technical" limitation.
There is only consensus or war. What Thomas describes is a system to avoid
war on a daily basis. Such systems are to be mechanically supported to work
(his point about the Staff person to chair is good. This is Gov, UN
"mechanics"). But they call for time, staff; money etc.
The innovation of our time is to replace staff by computers. This is true
here too. This is why I made "let become Estonian" the main slogan of my
BoD campaign. This means to adopt a systeme where the gouvenement working
structure, archiving, reporting, consensus building etc.. is transparent
because assisted by a computer everyone can access.
This goes the way Thomas wants. It addresses Michaels concerns.
Is that a dream? I believed it until I saw the incredible Estonian success
story. Cabinet Minister meetings on the Net with citizen participating on
line in real time.
Now, would the ICANN adopt a similar thinking and develop a tool along
those lines (i.e. we specify, test and validate as a common working tool),
this would certainly be adopted by the whole Internet community and the
world with feeds back of incredible quality.
I copy Esther Dyson because all what we need is a VC able to understand the
Estonian model and to match it to the US, European, Eastern cultures and
able to organize the software development. Her @large effort could serve as
a test community. Joop would be excited: far more interesting that his
forum - yet along the same type of concern.
We need that. We have the competence to specify it. We represent a real
market. To interconnect our working habits and decision preparation
processes is a far more exciting things for a gouvernance group than WLS
:-). Will Esther pick the challenge and fund it? I have the need and a
serious way to buy thousands of them if at a realistic price (let say less
than 10$ per year / user). I am sure we all have some needs too.
At 18:13 04/04/02, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>I do not think that the economic desires of some players should be allowed
>to (1) morph a technical process into an economic regulatory one and/or
>(2) use a technical chokepoint to achieve ends they cannot achive through
>ordinary political processes.
>I also think that there probably is NO reasonable process at this level of
>generality and disconnect from the parties affected by the rules
>generated. So I do not think this is the proper way to set up the
>The David Johnson posting to which you refer does not seem to have hit my
>inbox, perhaps a casualty of the recent tinkering with my filters (I have
>been innundated with spam recently and have been resorting to various
>homebrew countermeasures). Perhaps you could privately forward me a copy
>On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > That is, you are advocating the "policy market" approach also
> > suggested by David Johnson in his earlier posting.
> > Still, there may be a desire for uniform policy development - either
> > because it's plain necessary (think "minimum requirements"), or
> > because it's economically desirable for some key players involved
> > (think "UDRP"). In both cases, you need a reasonable process.
> > So, once again - what do you folks think about the process
> > suggested, when applied within these limits?
> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
>A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | email@example.com
>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> -->It's hot here.<--
>This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
>Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html