[ga] Starting From The Top -- The Supporting Organisations

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Sandy

Thanks for your interesting email.

I have just written privately to an influential figure in the ICANN world.
As the argument raised was quite valid, and my response was quite
considered, I should share it with you.  The initial response was in reply
to my previous email (indicated with > > ).

> > I'd like to see the ASO and PSO merged into a Technical Supporting
> > Organisation (TSO).  That would include all the telcos, ISPs and
> > other infrastructure.
>
> The PSO really ought to be replaced by a CTO (Chief Technical Officer) and
> its board seats eliminated.

That's the same thing really.  By merging the ASO and PSO, the influence of
the PSO becomes very minor.  It could easily be just a Technical Office
somewhere.

> The ASO has a real role - address allocation is a very arcane issue and
> one with significant economic and technical overtones.  But the ASO needs
> to be vastly expanded to permit meaningful participation by entities other
> than the regional IP address registries.

My point, which I think you have agreed with, is that technical issues
cannot be carried out in isolation.  I look at mailing lists like
[namedroppers] and think that, lurking behind the technical issues, are
hard nosed ISPs and telcos.  And very many other technical people.

I see the internet as one big piece of engineering infrastructure being used
by people (who don't necessarily have technical knowledge) for purposes like
business, games, downloading music, collecting money for charity,
communicating information with others, politics, etc. etc.

This dichotomy is so stark, in my mind, that it permeates the whole system.
It is demonstrated every time a "user" goes into an "isp" for service or
advice.  You have said:

> I don't like drawing lines about who ought to participate and who may not
> - my preference is for letting people self-label themselves and aggregate
> (or not) according to their self-perceived needs of the moment.  That's
> normal politics.

There are several problems with that proposition.  Imagine a school
teacher coming along and artificially dividing a big group of children into
two groups.  Lets call them "kids" and divide them into "boys" and "girls"
for convenience.  The teacher then invests a lot of authority and effort in
keeping these two group separated.  Let's call that "segregation".

After a while, perhaps many years, smarter kids will start to realise that
these divisions are arbitrary and unfair.  Then they will start to organise.
But first they have to start by educating people as to what is wrong with
the system.  And because they have been brought up that way, it is not an
easy task to convince people there is a better way.

Meanwhile the teacher is still keeping the two groups segregated making
communication harder.  Eventually after much effort, kids start getting the
idea that boys and girls can play together.  Then they need to develop
political structures to overcome the current system.  Unless they feel very
aggrieved, most kids will see it as too much trouble saying "oh well, it
works well as it is, let's just leave it alone".

And the present system wins by default.  Just look at apartheid in South
Africa.  In fact, I remember when (in November 1965)  Ian Smith declared UDI
in Rhodesia because he refused to allow "blacks" to share power with
"whites".

Of course, Zimbabwe is now ruled by a ruthless dictator and ex-terrorist,
Robert Mugabe.  Which brings up the other tool used by those in authority.
That changing the system will lead to anarchy, chaos and disorder.  This is
sometimes true.  But it is an unfair characterisation in most cases.

Another problem that comes to mind is that the developers of the new system
have to argue among themselves to prove their case.  Whatever one person
suggests, another person will destroy.  Neither of them say "Is your
proposal better than the CURRENT system?".  No, they say "Is your propoposal
as good as some notional, pie in the sky, idealistic system?".

If you don't think so, just look at the history of the individuals in IDNO
etc.  Meanwhile time passes and nothing gerts done.  Just look how hard
people like Martin Luther King and the whole civil rights movement had to
struggle.  Or how long Nelson Mandela spent in jail fighting apartheid.

There is a dumb story about a person in London.  Some tourist came up to
him and asked him how to get to a certain destination.  His answer was
"Well if I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".  That's my view
too.

That is also my deciding argument.  There is a need for change in the
ICANN structure.  It is better for that change to start from somewhere
else.  Not from where we are at the moment.  So let's change the deckchairs
and start again.

> Carving people up into pre-designated "stakeholder" groups creates the
> kind of unworkable situations we have today in ICANN.

No for two reasons.  One is that my proposal for two supporting
organisations (hardware and software, or physical and logical, or
engineering and business) so closely matches with the underlying
reality that you will see it in any science book you pick up.  Try one
on DNA, for example, or astronomy.

The other is that, with a bit of effort, we could make the structure
flexible.  Then the people involved could reorganise themselves.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss





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