Re: The "Statement of Principles"

[Ken Freed <kenfreed@media-visions.com>]

>On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Ken Freed wrote:
>
>> Sascha --
>> I'd like your permission to post our exchange
>> (below) on the lists. Please let me know. Thanks!
>> -- ken
>
>yes you can post it whereever you want if you think it is 
>interesting and useful for others
>
>but at the moment is the white paper actual :-)
>
>sascha

As a given, the U.S. White Paper is the "proposal of the moment."
We need to start with what's real before achieving the ideal. 
-- kf 

>> 
>> ___________________________
>> 
>> >On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Ken Freed wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sascha --
>> >> Thank you for clarifying your position.
>> >> As for self-governance of the Internet,
>> >> I can understand your perspective, yet
>> >> I favor an educated public governing
>> >> instead of government by any elite.
>> >> I'm inviting us to think long-term,
>> >> asking all of us (me too) to evolve
>> >> a global sense of our interactivity
>> >> that stirs us to practice responsible
>> >> self-rule, the basis of real democracy.
>> >> Anyway, thanks again for clarity.
>> >> Happy Wednesday.
>> >> -- ken
>> >
>> >i am complitely with you but how to build this up ?
>> 
>> One mind at a time, each mind interacting with other minds,
>> all parties in every interaction being influenced by every
>> interaction, helping interactivity itself to "do its thing"
>> until we reach critical mass and society makes a quantum shift.
>> The challenge is twofold, practicing personal democracy in our
>> private lives, and then expressing global sense in our world.
>> 
>> >From my view, the gtld proposal has not and cannot
>> admit wide-open public participation in taking the
>> critical policy decisions that will shape the path
>> of the Internet in the years ahead. Since the form
>> of Internet governance cannot help but have a deep
>> influence on the diverse forms of local to national
>> government, the Internet needs to be governed by as
>> open-ended and as participatory a process as we can
>> possibly develop. Never underestimate the public's
>> willingness or capacity for responsible self rule.
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >so to be a part of the "elite" gives you also the
>> >posibility to change things or establishing it in
>> >the direction you propose
>> 
>> I do not want the global Internet to be governed by a
>> self-selected elite. I want the Interent to be governed
>> by everyone on the planet, at least, everyone willing to
>> educate themselves and vote responsibly as world netizens,
>> at first by electing capable individuals to representative
>> assemblies, and one day governing directly by online voting.
>> People with good hearts may disagree on solutions to common
>> problems, and democracy certainly is much less eficient than
>> royal decree, but if we use fair, peaceful and open means to
>> find mutally acceptable answers, democracy really can work.
>>
>> The inherent weakness in any vision of self or group
>> as an "elite" is that it creates an "us versus them"
>> mindset, a form of split perception, the refusal to
>> see how much all of us are interlinked. We may think
>> "we" are acting in the best interest of "them," but
>> there's an inherent paternalism in our efforts, the
>> innate sense that "we" know better than "them," and
>> our hubris undermines any benefits. And if any elite
>> person feels insecure inside, sustaining one's elite
>> status becomes a point of personal identity. We start
>> to view "them" as a dire enemy who must be conquored.
>> We mask our insecurities with force. Driven by some 
>> warped kind of Randian, utilitarian selfishness, we 
>> fast become unable (or unwilling) to accept the wider
>> consequences of our actions. "We" feel disconnected
>> from "them." We dare not let ourselves know how our
>> interactions change life for everyone, to whatever
>> degree. What matters is being elite. If our egoism
>> is combined with a lack of compunction induced by
>> split perception, all lies and repressions become
>> tolerable -- whatever it takes to stay in power.
>> The soul withers into darkness in the process.
>> 
>> As one working toward a day of universal democracy,
>> I am concerned that gTLD actions are undemocractic.
>> The means always do predict the ends, and too many
>> in the gTLD-MoU camp have exhibited an attitude that
>> the ends justify the means. I do not trust such folk
>> to be in charge. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>> 
>> I am unwilling to be goverend by any elite, no matter
>> how well-meaning. By siding with those who have acted
>> on this list to squelch dissent and distract readers
>> with side issues, you share their "karma." And since
>> your notes have always impressed me as coming from
>> one with a stronger moral character than most folk,
>> at least, a higher set of ideals and values, I now
>> ask you once again to reconsider your support for
>> "gTLD-Lite." Support instead the drafting of a
>> global Internet constituition that lays out a
>> framework for all netizens to have a fair say.
>> 
>> Why not act to give democracy a chance at success?
>> 
>> -- ken
>> 
>> >
>> >thats the point behind beeing a part of
>> >internet self-governance
>> >
>> >thanks
>> >sascha
>> >ps.beeing a member of pab gives you the posibility to change it too !
>> 
>> Make PAB an elected, democratic assembly, and we'll talk about it.
>> -kf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>