Re: [wg-review] Babel and the Tower

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Luca,
I understand there is real thinking here, I have some difficulty in 
understanding
what you really plead for? I will drop only  few lines for you and you telle me
if its may ring a bell and if you would be interested to share;

1. new forms of dialog and decision making

     we obviously have to take into account existing scheme for a common
     understanding and legal acceptance. But the main problem of any Internet
     group is to work out very simple, robust, acceptable forms of polylog
     decision and consensus evaluation. This group is a good example of
     this difficulty. It however serves as a smoke screen for several 
initiatives
     going that way. If you want to share you welcome.

2. Human rights

     ICANN is not about human right, democracy, consensus, etc... it is
     about making a technically absurd and hence compex system to work.
     When you pick your phone you are not interested it is democratic or
     not, you are interested in two things: it works and the consensual way
     of using it is respected.

     However the *usage* of Internet calls for Human Rights. Actually they
     belong to the e-human rights, including compuers, TV, radio.. and we
     must very seriously, very professionnaly work on them. There are five
     plus re global review

     - to be on the net (name, qual access, privacy, training,portection...)
     - to belong (culture, family, language, history, association, etc...
     - to speak and broadcas freely (free of speach, system works, ..)
     - receive what you want (spamming, filters, abuse of language, family
       protection...)
     - to grow (business, Industrial property...)

     And this must be reveiwed vs. the Digita Divide for an equal international
     access whatever the politcal, economical, etc...

     Interstingly enough to develop that is good for industry and investors.
     Due to required innovation.

Just this to explain a few things. There are many more. They are decided
here in part. Among a lot of pompous bores and unqualified persons,
but most of great personnal dedication, we owe to respect.

Jefsey


On 03:48 10/01/01, Luca Muscarà said:
>Hi members,
>
>I have been reading a good half of all the messages of this WG and browsed 
>half
>of the rest since Dec. 28th. Because of my very limited knowledge of relevant
>issues and organisms and not wanting to add additional burden to the 
>mailbox, I
>have not written yet, still having been exposed to these flow of words 
>there is
>now something I wish to say and I hope you'll apologise me for non being too
>relevant to the current debate or for not being technically too precise about
>my proposals. There is probably more than an entire archive I didn't have time
>to read.
>
>The Internet seems to me like a good metaphor of our society and growing up it
>has come to encompass all its worst contradictions; still, the Internet is one
>of its most beautiful political expressions beyond our ability to realize its
>entire political potential and should be used to improve human society.
>
>While trying to keep up with the netizen promise of empowering single
>individuals, I noticed in this WG a goodfaith attempt to impose older
>schemes--inherited by older political paradigms, like democracy, consensus,
>elections, polls, maybe for pragmatic reasons and/or in order to guarantee an
>authority that past history has put on the ICANN, and its structures and
>people.
>Is this a necessary paradox ?  It seems to me we are flying too low to obtain
>public creditability throughout borrowing the form of traditional and less
>advanced forms of politics. We should try to get rid of these old
>iconographies, use more imagination and maybe experiment something new.
>
>Maybe it is not very pragmatic at the present point--you will apologize my
>latin roots for these speculations--I hope you'll get my message anyway:
>
>If the requirement to participate to the creation of consensus is to be 
>able to
>demonstrate the ownership or relation to a domain name, than I wish somebody
>could theoretically grant each individual on Earth the right to get one,
>including the preservation of this right for future generations.
>
>The option of launching the widest of calls on the networks in order to 
>realize
>a first census not of the machines but of the netizens, before they could be
>given the ability to agree/disagree/be unsure or propose changes to any
>document, should be considered, once netizens have registered.
>
>Anybody who has been participating to this WG should subscribe to the need of
>implementing automatic procedures for facilitating collective writing of
>documents beyond e-mail (considering also language issues) and adequate
>semantics for archiving/ fast retrieval of relevant documents.
>
>Because we express our psychology with language, paradoxically names are more
>Babel-oriented than numbers.
>Luckily enough languages are alive and do change, despite slowly, maybe the
>Internet will accelerate these processes.
>I have the feeling that ANY CHOICE will be attacked and criticized and will
>result in a loss of power by the proponents, still I hope to be wrong and get
>the ones I like in time.
>
>We are grateful if the network was built in such a way that allows us to be
>here now, but what we are doing of it bears great implications for the entire
>society way beyond our range.
>
>All the best in 2001,
>
>Luca Muscara'
>
>
>
>--
>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

--
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