Re: The public good

[usdh@mail.ccnet.com (steve)]

FYI

>July 18, 1998
>
>TO: Michael Sondow
>FROM: Stephen J. Page
>RE: A Response to Your Essay, "The Public Good"
>
>Michael Sondow wrote:
>>        As a conscientious member of the worldwide community which,
>>while not deriving primary income from it, are the Internet's true
>>end-users and thus the most interested parties in changes to Internet
>>governance, I am very concerned by the lack of public representation on
>>the various discussion groups, councils, and boards presently deciding
>>the future structure of the Internet. I believe that I am far from being
>>alone in this concern.
>
>Steve Page:
>        Michael, it is your willingness to speak up and share your concerns
>which will provide the necessary encouragement for others to do the same.
>I have tried to do the same.
>        Inside of each person exists an actual physical representation of
>the external world in which we live.  The representation exists in your
>mind and is stored in your brain.  This representation, a combination of
>our brain's structure along with our sensory experiences, is stored in
>memory.
>        Since we each live within a world which is governed by the same
>scientific laws (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.), our internal
>representations of the external world are influenced, and in fact
>*governed* by these laws.  We are inseparable from the physical laws of the
>universe.
>        In your essay, you recognize that today we are faced with a
>situation where human beings do not recognize the organizational
>implications of this scientific fact (as in the case of the formalization
>process of creating order through Internet governance by formally
>structuring IANA), where the internal order and structure of human beings
>is subordinated to and influenced by the laws of the universe.
>        By speaking about the lack of representation, you are intuitively
>recognizing that when we "Internet aware" humans as an early adopting or
>privileged "in-the-know" group not externally reflect the internal
>diversity our individual body's diverseness, its openness, its freedom, and
>interconnectedness, a unified whole system made up of subsystems. You
>recognize that the external organization does not reflect the internal
>truth, which we know is "right".  So, our organizational process is
>therefore "wrong".
>        Thank you for adding your voice and speaking up.  Everyone knows
>this truth, so you are not alone.  Self-deception is rampant in this
>process.
>
>Michael:
>>        Throughout the information promulgated thus far by the NTIA, the
>>IANA, and the other Internet authorities on the subject of the creation
>>of a new central Internet authority, recurrent reference is made to the
>>"public good" as that central authority's purpose, yet nowhere, not in
>>the U.S. Government's white paper nor in the IANA's communications, is
>>mention made of representation by members of the public, much less of
>>any mechanism to assure that the decisions of the new authority -
>>certain to have widesweeping effects upon the public - will be made in
>>their interest and for their good.
>
>Steve:
>        Repeatedly, I have attempted to make this same point...that the
>term public is imprecise, and in the context of a network of wires and
>pipes called the Internet, which allows one person to communicate with one
>(or many) "other(s)", a one-to-one point-to-point network, the term public
>really should be replaced with the term "individual", the person who has
>the willpower to decide whether to use the network, where to go, what to
>find, and how long to use it.
>        I've made the point by asking many questions, that I have never
>heard anyone in a position of leadership address.
>
>>From a 6/29 post:
>What is missing is a vision for how the process is going to provide
>SERVICE to people, which means to all subsets in the entire system: all
>people, all languages, across all geography, and within all economic
>systems and governmental systems.  In a visual and cognitive medium like
>Internet, the only way to achieve successful consensus across all subsets
>is to focus on building a framework which is consistent with the rules
>which apply to all of the above, the superset.
>        The Superset is very simply...humanity. The rules to apply are the
>Laws of Nature.  Harmonizing those rules for the 85-100 constituents will
>result in the only consensus which can exist over the long haul...a
>framework of service based upon one individual internet user (multiply by
>the number of users).  Anything less than that won't fly in the long term,
>(although it might seem to fly in the short term).
>        A document like a Constitution, with its emphasis on rights,
>freedoms, property ownership and individual protection is the only thing
>that will work, over time.  That's why a Constitutionally supported,
>Congressionally-charted federal Trust (like the Presidio Trust) is an
>appropriate framework for doing what needs to be done.
>
>And from another post...
>June 25, 1998
>
>Stef and others,
>        Mrs. Thatcher's speech, which also included a speech from Mr.
>Gorbachev, was broadcast two nights ago (June 24th) and it was either a
>June 24th or June 23 Conference at George Mason University.  Senator John
>Warner of Virginia was one who gave introductions, so if one calls his
>office in Washington, all of the information should be able to be obtained.
>(I'll paraphrase in more detail.)
>        The content of the material were focused on "higher level" concepts
>with historical reference to the role of information technology in the
>future, concepts like "leadership", "social structure", "culture", "equal
>access", "net security", "rule of law", "role of government", and "vision",
>which are really necessary intellectual elements for shaping the future,
>now.
>        As Mrs. Thatcher expertly and passionately spoke, she gave a real
>world view, from her leader's perspective, as a person who studied the role
>of the nature's laws (as a student of science) first, who then studied the
>role of mankind's attempt to create order by imposing the "rule of law"
>using the human mind. As a scientifically aware lawyer, she described a
>physics-based cognitive framework upon which she had built her world view.
>        It was gratifying and hopeful to hear that someone as respected in
>the world had been through their intellectual development path starting
>first from the appreciation of the natural framework which exists within
>the universe, the of forces of nature. Dave Farber's "photons have no
>morals" is evidence of another person's recognition of the reality with
>which we must harmonize.
>        This entire "consensus building" exercise, as Mrs. Thatcher would
>undoubtedly recognize, should start at the intellectual level of *what
>exists* and "how things work", which is exactly why Mrs. Thatcher's very
>pragmatic, yet principled leadership was so successful for Britain in the
>1980s.  In essence, her speech was..."look around", see what works, and
>apply it to the information technology issues, situations X, Y, and Z which
>will present themselves in the future.
>        In our case, we can apply Mrs. Thatcher's framework of a
>nature-harmonized DNS future, now.  By attempting to harmonize with what
>has proven to be successful in nature...open, ordered, inclusive, free
>market, almost chaotic, entrepreneurialistic man-made structures, we will
>be able to build institutions which have a better chance of stability and
>long term benefit to stakeholders.
>In a previous private post to Jay Fenello in response to a question he had
>about my attendance at the upcoming conference, I expanded on the concepts
>which Mrs. Thatcher spoke, if interested...
>
>Last Week, 6/17/98
>
>Jay,
>        <snip>...In my opinion, there needs to be
>four conferences, one in the east (DC), one in the west (NorCal), one in
>the north/midwest (Chicago), one in the south (Atlanta/Dallas) in order to
>build inclusion and decentralization...
>        If the conference was organized as an educational one, open to the
>floor <as Allisat's agenda suggests>, I would come with hundreds of
>Powerpoint slides and teach what I
>know to any and all interested parties.  The sad part is...few seem to have the
>humility to want to learn anything from anyone (lots of Not-Invented Here
>NIH Syndrome).
>        In my opinion, things need to start with Physics, the role of light
>(photons) in shaping our behavior as we try to master (and bring order to)
>our environment.
>Survival is the goal of everyone's brain, therefore every organization's
>fabric, therefore every nation state.  People are the common denominator.
>This fact is hard wired into our brain.  Survival in a
>harsh environment means 'coop'etition, a combination of cooperation and
>competition. (This is the background of why I've harped on 'administrative
>cooperation and marketplace competition' as being "the model" which
>harmonizes with Nature.
>        "Coop"etition (harmony in nature) is a two-sided coin.  The first
>step to build harmony is to focus on the cooperation side of the coin.
>Competition comes later.  Only by recognizing how cooperation occurs in
>nature, in the context of our human instinct of survival, can we apply
>create a system which is both harmonious with our need for survival and
>balanced with our constant requirement for growth and change.
>        In this context, IF the conference dealt with building the
>necessary "intellectual infrastructure" I could and would provide an
>educational perspective on how all successful systems evolve and change.
>Some of the Course modules, each about 1 hours, would be augmented by
>visuals:
>        Intro Course 1 to attendees on the Role of Photons and Vision and
>Behavior, which is critical to understanding Course 2 which is the Role of
>Photons, Vision and Perception, which would be a foundation for Course 3,
>the Role of Photons, Vision, Perception, and Cognition.  Course 5 would be
>the Roles of DNS, Language and Cognition on the Net.   Course 6 would be
>DNS, Language, and the Human Brain: a Systems View.  Course 7 would be the
>relationshiip of Photons, Retinal Impressions, and Advertising Impressions
>in Shaping Individual Cognition and Behavior.  Course 8 would be the role
>of Photons, Vision, Behavior and Politics on the Net.  Course 9 would be
>the Role of Photons, Vision, Behavior and Economics on the Net.  Course 10
>would focus on Social Structure.
>        The thread that links each of these mini-courses is the essence of
>what makes us human beings, the role of our spirit, our unique energy's
>interplay with the energy forces which affect the universe (physics). These
>topics may be abstract to some people who have no interest in how things
>work but it is all based upon what is REAL. That is where things need to
>start in my opinion.  (We are decades past debate on the laws of physics
>thanks to Einstein so we can apply physics and mathematics to help us all
>achieve individual *understanding*, which when aggregated can help build
>*consensus*.)
>        Without the intellectual foundation which focuses more on
>truth, wisdom, and understanding (the elements of statemanship) at the
>highest level, everything else we've been doing has been a waste-of-time,
>in my opinion, because the process has no clear goal or mission (like a
>simple statement
>like "service to individuals") capsulized into a mission statement that
>guides the fragmented group(s).  (What is missing is a fundamental principle
>of basic Geometry which says find the least common denominator which ties
>things together.)
>        Starting with the truth which exists in the physical environment
>first, we can then move beyond the stalemate between the equal and opposite
>forces in Nature which have been butting heads over the past two years.
>        So, since the missing link is clearly "intellectual", the first step is
>TRULY is creating the "intellectual infrastructure".  Somebody
>instinctively knew that when the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund was
>created way back when, but nobody in any position of power has been humble
>enough to say, "We don't know what the "intellectual part" needs to be," so
>money has been just accummulating, with no clear use, ticking people off.
>        My message to attendees is: if people really want to do something
>good at the conference, recognize that the first thing to do will be to
>create and/or gather the intellectual property which can be useful to help
>build a common direction.  (I've been doing that, as you know.)
>        Next, the "intellectual infrastructure fund" can pay for the
>educational website which serves as the least common denominator that can
>be linked to ALL of the
>competing forces.  (I have recently made this proposal in writing via
>Certified mail to Mr. Postel/IANA, and have received no response.  Is there
>too much Arrogance? Self-centeredness? Too much work going on?  Too little
>understanding of the human-side of the equation? All of the above?
>Something is clearly wrong with an approach which is unresponsive to an
>education-first facilitation effort.)
>        Again, the only way to build true consensus is by
>focusing on what is real, and what exists.  Everything else can be debated
>forever, as recent history has shown.
>        An educationally-based supra-national or supra-organizational
>solution based on that is the only one that will work in the long term.
>Unfortunately, the traditional stakeholders (or old boy network) does not
>understand the "education-first" position.
>        So, until an education-first solution is proposed, there's too much
>polarity being demonstrated by the differing factions to achieve any real
>positive outcome at such an expeditiously organized conference, I'm afraid.
><Mrs. Thatcher reinforced this message by specifically focusing on
>leadership and the need for patience and vision, and its opposite, which
>is...expediency based reactionism.>
>        The answers we seek to this dilemma exist inside of each and every
>person,but 99.9% of the players don't know that because they haven't expanded
>their intellectual sphere's beyond their own limited past history and
>narrowly focused education.
>        I'll say it again: understanding the eye and brain's relationship
>with physics of photons is one of the necessary FIRST STEPS in the
>consensus building process, and it is the key to understanding how we can use
>the tools of electromagnetic energy, bound by the laws of physics, to help
>shape and change the relationships between all things, people,
>organizations, governments.
>
>Seeking Harmony,
>Steve Page
>(c) Copyright, 1998.  Stephen J. Page.  All Rights Reserved.
>
>
>Michael Sondow:
>>        Until now, the Internet has been conducted in the public
>>interest because its founders and coordinators have been educators and