Re: [atlarge-discuss] questionnaire

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 04:23 26/05/03, Joop Teernstra said:
> Jefsey,
> I am dismayed how you and Bruce have substituted the questions about 
> structure from the April Polling Booth poll, that you had promised to 
> repeat here on the ballot email, with a new set of questions entirely your own.
I do not think that we did that. To the countrary all the ideas were taken 
into consideartion. But many of the ideas were repeated and confused by 
details. And many were limited to one conception or two depending on the 
initial authors. They also called for too long preliminaries. Also we 
considered allthe additions which came from members. Your April questions 
are not the Gospel, what the Members talk about is the reference. The list 
of the questions was published and you objected to them on one or two 
points which were corrected.

In terms of general organization there is a problem I face for years but we 
plainly discovered at this occasion. Latin and probably English (?) 
thinking goes by three (centralized, federal, confederal). American 
language does not know that difference and usually goes by two (friend or 
foe, client server, State or Federal, American or Global, TCP/IP or not, 
DNS or nothing, ICANN contract or not, TCP/IP portocol stack vs OSI). We 
meet that problem everywhere in networking, domain names, ICANN 
organization, understanding of the world. There seems to be two layers of 
thinking in the American cultures where there are three in the Latin 
cultures (I do not know about Chinese, Arabic, Japanese languages).

There is a famous post of Joe Sims where he documents that. He describes 
for ICANN a job that Europe calls "concertation" and by lack of American 
word he calls "coordination", what we consider as the exact opposite. His 
description is good, but we obviously all oppose what we all name 
coordination. The same applies to words like networks, global, gouvernance, 
etc... So we tried with different people from different cultures to get the 
best of the questionnaire. The mail format called it to be terse. This does 
help, but I accept that this is not easy and that the result is not perfect.

I am sure that the new Panel will have plenty of time in bettering this.
We just tried to keep a momentum going with most of the best of us 
protesting rather than helping.

Basically there are four possible choices proposed in the questionnaire:
1. centralized. Authority is by the Panel which delegates to coordinated 
committees.
2. federal. Authority is shared by different committees in cooperation with 
the Panel.
3. what Latins name a "confederal Gouvernance working by concertation". 
This means committees retaining their autority and concerting together 
serviced by a catalizing Panel.
4. a genuine blend of them the Members may come with in responding their 
way to the questionnaire.

This may be compared to the theoretical organization of a standard State, 
of the USA and of Europe plus the possibility for other 
languages/cultures/experiences to bring their contribution.

jfc























> There was a chance to verify the outcome of that April poll with a new 
> (email) poll, conducted by an independent party, but with the same questions.
>
> This opportunity to make those results uncontested has now been lost.
>
> Did you do that deliberately?
>
>
>
> -joop-
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release Date: 19/05/03

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de