Hi Dan,

Yes - it's getting a little philosophical, but that's what I do. The 
church of Reality is a religion based on pursuing the understanding of 
reality. If we go extinct then we can't pursue understanding reality. So 
my perspective is - where is humanity heading? We should have this 
galaxy fully colonized in the next 250 million years. That is unless we 
screw up and destroy ourselves.

Humanity is evolving through our technology and all our advanced 
technology communicates through the Internet and the Internet is the 
single most important factor at this moment in human evolution. I think 
it's important to take a step back and look at the Internet and say WOW! 
If we don't understand what the Internet is and how it relates to our 
species identity then how are we going to be able to make the right 
decisions on how to govern it. We need to see the Internet as something 
beyond an infrastructure to deliver porn. :)

The neurological functions of our brains are no longer confined to "meat 
space". Humanity has an independent collective consciousness that we 
have built and that we can all access and contribute to. I think we need 
to collectively appreciate and acknowledge the role and importance of 
the Internet to humanity and put that in the charter and let that 
knowledge guide us in determining how we govern it.

So - isn't a philosophical discussion and essential starting point? I 
think so.

If we are going to try to make the "right decision" don't we need a way 
to independently test what the "right decision" means? How do we achieve 
our goals if we don't know what our goals are? Why are we here? What are 
we trying to accomplish? How do we know if we are on the right track? I 
think we need a philosophical infrastructure to base our position on so 
that when we are tested we can explain it based on a solid position.


On 6/30/2013 8:44 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> Marc,
>
> This is getting a little philosophical, and broad-based well beyond
> ICANN-specific purview.  But, it could be that such meta-framing eventually
> plays into ICANN's mission.
>
> I like the overall idea: I've been calling the Internet "Society's Brain"
> since late 2008, and I think it is an apt metaphor.  Glad to see this meme
> emerge elsewhere, suggests that it has some potential for universal
> application.
>
> I do think the public-utility aspect is perhaps a bit overdrawn in your
> description (for example, phone service is not yet entirely dependent on
> the Internet per se, even the parts that are moving to digital VoIP
> technology over the major telcos' private networks).  But you're not wrong
> about the general direction: over time more and more critical functions
> will depend on this infrastructure.  "Convergence" is real.  I do think the
> Internet should be viewed as the equivalent of a public utility,
> legitimately subject to public oversight in the public interest.
>
> I've thought for some time that information technology is inherently
> neither good nor bad -- it simple *amplifies* everything about information
> and communication, both the good and bad.  Its "moral valence" depends
> entirely on how its applications are designed.
>
> What this tech is, is *power*: power to speak, power to see, power to
> identify patterns out of noise, power to know -- ultimately, power to
> control (to control oneself, and to control others).  Whoever holds this
> power has a distinct advantage over whomever does not hold this power.  So,
> when this power is concentrated narrowly in the hands of special elites,
> the rest of us suffer.  When this power is broadly distributed, society as
> a whole benefits (at the expense of elite privilege, but not at the expense
> of general benefit to elites in proportion to the public at large).  And of
> course, the "collective action problem" plays into all of this, especially
> here at NCSG.
>
> I think this is the central truth of this technology, and that is what can
> frame the moral and political discussions moving forward.
>
> I don't know that ICANN is the place where this framework can emerge in a
> meaningful way.  My sense is that it needs to emerge elsewhere, and if it
> takes hold then it could eventually make its way into ICANN's mission and
> processes through the bottom-up participation of stakeholders that absorb
> the framework elsewhere.  ICANN does not *lead* in this sort of
> vision-making.  At best, it follows.  At worst, it doesn't even follow.
>
> I mean, this way of thinking definitely informs my understanding of what's
> going on at/within ICANN, because the power struggle has been at hand from
> the get-go AIUI.  It certainly has been present since I first got involved
> in 2007.  But I think some other stakeholders may not want to frame things
> this way, especially those that represent elite interests that want to
> consolidate power in their own hands, and thus end up on the negative side
> in this framework.
>
> I don't know that this discussion really has much purchase within ICANN
> itself, at least at this moment in time.
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>
>
>
> At 9:33 AM -0700 6/30/13, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> Hi Klaus,
>>
>> I'm glad you brought this topic up because it's something I've been
>> thinking about a lot lately. Let us assume that all the stakeholders
>> want what they believes is "best" for IG, what is the definition of "best"?
>>
>> For example, there are those of us in the "liberty" crowd who fell
>> strongly about the importance of liberty. There are others who are in it
>> to make money, who would point out (correctly) that profit, jobs, the
>> free market, incentives to innovate are essential. Someone has to pay
>> for the hardware. So when we argue these different values, who is to say
>> that my liberty is more important than your money? Where does the
>> concept of right and wrong come from i a universal context? We all want
>> to make the "right choice" - but how do we know it when we make it? By
>> what standard of universal values can we apply to even define the
>> concept of "right choice"?
>>
>> Fortunately - I've been working on this and in the last 6 months I think
>> I've solved this problem. :)
>>
>> The way I see it - it's all about the future of humanity. I see the
>> future of humanity as a choice between 2 paths. We are either evolving
>> in a positive direction, or we are on the path to extinction. I can make
>> a long argument here that existence is better than extinction but it
>> sort of seems intuitively obvious and I'm going to just ask for
>> consensus on this. Positive evolution is good - extinction is bad. Agreed?
>>
>> I see humanity as evolving very fast right now through our technology
>> and humanity is totally dependent on the Internet. I think we would all
>> agree that if someone turned the Internet off today that there would be
>> total chaos, no internet, no phones, no power grid, no food
>> distribution, water, sewer, everything down. Millions of people would
>> die. This would be bad.
>>
>> So - if the NSA for example creates a single point of failure for the
>> Internet (Since the NSA has hacked the world, whoever hacks the NSA
>> hacks the world.) that is bad. So the NSA can't do what they are doing
>> because it puts the future of humanity at risk. If the NSA creates the
>> infrastructure for an Orwellian government (N. Korea as example) then
>> Orwellian governments
>> inhibit innovation and that's bad for business and bad for the
>> commercial constituency. I'm sure Google, Microsoft, and Apple are not
>> happy about being required by law to lie to their customers.
>>
>> I think that the Internet is the most important event in human evolution
>> since writing was invented and that the future of humanity is dependent
>> on the internet governance decisions we make today. If we make the right
>> choices we evolve into something wonderful. If we make the wrong choices
>> then we evolve into something terrible or we go extinct.
>>
>> So - I offer this idea.
>>
>> Let us recognize that the Internet has a universal purpose to all humans
>> on the planet in that it is the infrastructure to humanity's collective
>> mind and it is the nervous system for human civilization. Then from that
>> perspective of what the Internet is and how it relates to humanity's
>> future, we have a way of determining what "better" is because we have
>> established a contextual framework for determining right choices from
>> wrong choices.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> On 6/30/2013 1:18 AM, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>> Dear Robin, Dear Friends
>>>
>>> Greetings. I want to propose the topic of IG for All Outreach for the
>>> discussion with the ICANN Board of Directors and the ICANN Public
>>> Forum. I know this is a very wide topic and not on the top of the
>>> agenda, but I hope the following rationale will explain the need and
>>> urgency:
>>>
>>> Internet Governance today resembles a country where 1% of the
>>> population governs 99% of the population and 98% of these don't even
>>> know that the 1% exist!
>>>
>>> In the past IG could be sustained through the engagement and action of
>>> a few. What fundamentally changed is that IG today concerns and
>>> affects everybody, everywhere, connected or not! Today, everybody has
>>> a vital interest and stake in the IG processes. IG as a multi
>>> stakeholder process today is only sustainable when it is based on the
>>> awareness, knowledge and informed participation of all its
>>> stakeholders. IG as an open, legitimate and functioning multi
>>> stakeholder process is under threat if it has not a global general
>>> awareness about its function and issues at its root.
>>>
>>> A broad involvement of all in IG is in the vital self interest of all
>>> stakeholders in the Internet ecosystem today. As more people engage
>>> and participate in IG as more the existing governance structures will
>>> have to reevaluate and reform themselves in an organic ongoing
>>> process. The processes of renewal of IG will not be a revolutionary
>>> one but as an ongoing process of evaluation and reform.
>>> IG has to make the awareness and involvement of the general public a
>>> priority. An INFORMED global public, will participate in the making of
>>> INFORMED choices that will result in INFORMED policy making,
>>> resulting  in the sustained development of the common good we call the
>>> Internet and Information technologies. IG has to become a topic of
>>> common debate and interest for everybody like peace, the environment
>>> and climate change are.
>>>
>>> It can only become so, through a joint outreach, information and
>>> capacity building campaign by all those currently involved in IG. No
>>> single organization, including ICANN, can and should implement such a
>>> campaign on its own. A joint initiative, that is based on the creation
>>> of win/win situation and the respect of all stakeholders needs and
>>> abilities will also open up much needed spaces and opportunities of
>>> exchange and collaboration.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your consideration
>>>
>>> Yours
>>>
>>> Klaus
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross
>>> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 6:08 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Please propose discussion topics for NCSG's meetings at next
>>> month's ICANN Meeting in Durban
>>>
>>> As we prepare for the Durban ICANN Meeting next month, we need to come
>>> up with proposed discussion topics for the following meetings in
>>> Durban. (Remember, we've got remote participation, so you don't have
>>> to be in South Africa to participate at the meeting).  Please send
>>> your suggested topics to this list or me directly asap so we can build
>>> the various discussion agendas accordingly.  Thank you! - Robin
>>>
>>> PROPOSE TOPICS FOR THESE MEETINGS:
>>> 1.  NCSG discussion with ICANN Board of Directors
>>> 2.  NCSG discussion with At-Large community
>>> 3.  NCSG proposed topics for ICANN Public Forum
>>> 4.  NCSG proposed topics for GNSO Council discussion with Board of
>>> Directors