RE: Some ideas about COMMON VALUES -- Re: Proposed DNSO bylaws

[cgomes@internic.net]

Stef,

Excellent stake in the ground.  I would just emphasize one
thing regarding consensus that I believe you also pointed
out.  Consensus is important with regard to universal
interconnection but is not necessary on all issues.  If we
try to get even a rough consensus on some issues, we will
run into a conflict with value #2, diversity.

I sincerely believe with you that consensus on common values
is the right place to start because our values should be the
basis of all our consensus building exercises.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Einar Stefferud [mailto:Stef@nma.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 1:48 AM
To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
Cc: BWG; discuss@dnso.org; list@ifwp.org
Subject: Some ideas about COMMON VALUES -- Re: Proposed DNSO
bylaws


At last we are having a serious discussion on the critical
issues.

Over New Years, up in the mountains of southern California,
I came
across a very interesting book (just purchased by a friend)
that
reports on an effort to find a global set of common "VALUES"
upon
which it might be possible for all people, cultures and
religions to
agree, and which then in turn can support related goals,
strategic
plans for goal achievement, tactical operations for working
toward
achievement of selected goals, and also yield a broad rough
consensus
in terms of ethical and moral VALUES.

What I see as missing in our DNSO efforts so far, is this
same kind of
effort to find our common DNS system VALUES.  Of course, I
did not
think of actually seeking out such VALUES until I read the
book;-)...
But, the author appears to have succeeded, so why don't we
try too.

This is in some sense the meta meta problem, of finding the
higher
level roots of our desired solution, based on agreed upon
common
VALUES, before setting goals, before choosing strategic
plans, and
before choosing operational tactics for execution to achieve
the
chosen goals.

So, in parallel with this new ORSC sponsored bylaw drafting
effort, I
would like to explore our VALUES and GOALS which must stand
above and
lend guidance to our entire DNS coordination effort.

Let me start with a few of what I think are our common
VALUES, and ask
for some discussion of them, and other common VALUES to be
identified
by other participants.  What I have here is by no means
complete nor
the end of this story.  It is only a beginning, intended to
strike a
chord and lead to a path for progress.

1.  FAIRNESS: We all agree that we all (each and everyone
one of us)
    want to be treated FAIRLY, whatever that means.  I
believe we also
    want to treat others fairly!  Fear of UNFAIRNESS appears
to me to
    be the singularly most critical driver in most of our
various
    contentious arguments.  This is one of our worst
nightmares.

    Stated in more positive terms, this VALUE is what we
mean when we
    say "Treat others as you would like them to treat you!"
In
    internet protocol terms, this is known as "Be
conservative in what
    you send, and liberal in what you accept"!  Of course,
in a real
    world, we know that we cannot expect to always be so
treated, so
    we learn to maintain our guard against unfair treatment,
or
    against liberal sending in the case of Internet protocol
machines.
    Maintaining our guard is a very important aspect of
things.

2.  DIVERSITY:  We all seem to want somewhat different
results, in
    terms of profit vs non-profit, one business model vs
another, or
    one model for all vs open choice of models, etc...  But,
I
    believe we all agree that the Internet is designed to
handle
    DIVERSITY of applications over a common interconnection
substrate,
    and I believe that DIVERSITY is something that we agree
is both
    inevitable and desirable in the Global Internet.

    What is the VALUE of global HOMOGENEITY in place of
DIVERSITY?
    Enforced HOMOGENEITY is also one of our major
nightmares,
    especially if "The Other Guys" get to set the rules!
    So we redouble our guard!

3.  CONSENSUS:  We all agree that we need broad Rough
CONSENSUS, else
    whatever global DNS coordinating structure is put in
place will
    suffer an endless series of attacks and workarounds
until it is
    operationally defeated in the operational Internet.

    This is the notion that collectively we really want only
ONE
    INTERNET, but if the one we are allowed to have is not
adequate,
    we will work from the edges to make it into what we want
it to be.
    If any of us really want to be disconnected from The
Net, we can
    very easily achieve this without collective action.
But, it
    requires collective cooperative action to become and
stay
    interconnected.

    It is the VALUE of Universal Interconnection that we
seek!  The
    desire in all of us to be interconnected is the glue
that holds he
    Internet together.  Thus, the entire Internet is VALUE
based, and
    we must be faithful to the VALUE the common VALUE of
being
    interconnected.

4.  STABILITY:  We all agree that whatever is done, it must
deliver
    STABILITY of operations in terms of services delivered
to the
    users of the Internet.  But, I think that maybe this is
a GOAL,
    and not a VALUE, even though having it adds value.

5.  COHERENCE:  We all agree that the DNS must be coherent
at all
    levels, which is to say, it must not contain
name-to-address
    conflicts such that the same name resolves differently
in
    different servers, except during brief times when
specific zone
    changes are being propagated.  But, again, this looks
more like a
    GOAL than a VALUE.

6.  OPENNESS:  I think we all agree that OPEN is better than
CLOSED,
    though we may have different notions of what OPEN means
in
    operation.  Some of us believe that it is critical for
our
    creative processes to be open, while other seems to
believe that
    it is sufficient to display the results of closed
deliberations
    for all to see, but without any means for effecting
changes.  So,
    many of us object strongly when the creative process is
not
    OPEN, just because of the VALUE we give to OPENNESS.
So, I see
    this as a VALUE, and not a GOAL.  Your mileage may vary.

7.  TRUST: We all understand the need to TRUST each other,
and to
    TRUST the coordinating structures that we collectively
put in
    place.  Without TRUST in our collective creations, they
have very
    little VALUE.  TRUST might be a meta VALUE, in that we
need to be
    able to TRUST the FAIRNESS of everything we collectively
create.

As I stated above, I am certain that my little list is
nothing more
than an initial stake in the ground to suggest that the
VALUE
dimension is critical for us all to understand, and thus it
might be
critically important for us to collectively explore what our
common
VALUES are, so we can all keep them in mind as we proceed to
develop
goals and plans and tactics, all of which must be reflected
in our
bylaws, and in the institutions created by our bylaws.

It seems obvious to me now that I have seen the book, that
getting
clear on our common VALUES will help us to later find ways
to find
consensus agreements on, or at least mutual acceptance of,
goals,
strategies and tactics.

Without a relatively clear understanding of our common
VALUES, I do
not see how we might ever agree on any set of goals, whether
completely aligned or just nicely compatible.  The question
is, if we
do not have a sense of our common VALUES, how will we know
when we are
aligned on our VALUES.

So, as I see it, hopefully we might be able to find
CONSENSUS on
common VALUES, and then in keeping with our agreed upon
VALUES, adopt
compatible, though not necessarily identical sets of goals,
with
corresponding strategic plans and tactical operations to
support our
desired DIVERSITY without giving up FAIRNESS while achieving
our
separate and collective GOALS.  And, with our VALUES
understood, we
can easily take notice when our goals, strategies or tactics
violate
our common VALUES.

And, here is a last thought.  Given some set of common
values, such as
above, then within that context, we can set goals for such
things as
COHERENCE, STABILITY, SECURITY, RELIABILITY, FAIRNESS,
TRUSTWORTHYNESS, ETC, and these can be expressed
operationally as
objective criteria for acceptance of new TLDs for admission
into the
COMMOM ROOT, which must be FAIRLY administered through
cooperative
coordination of all the TLD Registry Operators.  The TLD
registries
are the source of all data to be recorded in the COMMON ROOT
ZONE, and
thus shared by all users of the Internet, who are primarily
interested
in always being able to connect with whomever they wish.

Just some food for thought.

The book I found over the New Year's weekend was written by:

	 Kidder Rushworth, published in 1994, and titled

	"Shared Values for a Troubled World:
	 Conversations with Men and Women of Conscience"

I recommend it highly.  It gets at the core of our problems
of finding
and using our globally shared core VALUES to build consensus
in a
shrinking world which is suffering from "technobulge".

It is available from AMAZON;-)...  I am buying a copy for
myself;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

PS: I wonder if we can find some way to get Kidder Rushworth
to become
    involved in our efforts to sort out the DNS MESS.  I
think his
    ideas and his methodology would be extremely valuable to
us and to
    the future of the Internet.  I also suspect that the
Internet
    would give him a real world experience in applying his
work...\s


>From your message Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:55:50 -0500:
}
}Dan,
}
}>Grandfathering all existing TLDs in the root (any proposal
that leads
}>to instability will just run up against too many brick
walls)
}>Open Business Model (any proposal that mandates
not-for-profit or
}>for-profit will run into too many brick walls)
}>Registrar-registry breakout mandatory except for "true"
ccTLDs (if we
}>don't do this, there will be too many anti-trust
considerations down
}>the line.  There is no technical reason, just doing our
bit to stay
}>out of court)
}>A more defined class for prospective registries like IOD,
Iperdome,
}>CORE, etc. (anything else will just prolong the DNS wars)
}
}You have it exactly right, except I'm not convinced the
}registrar-registry thing is required to pass antitrust
}muster.  The purpose of this DNSO and ICANN are to
}facilitate cooperation.  That can't be underscored enough.
}The endgame here is "herding cats," not dictating people's
}druthers.
}
}
}--tony