Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement

[henry <henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 20:29, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 11/02/2017 04:16 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:21 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > >> I’m not taking "that approach" at all. I’m trying to point out that a strong >> majority our elected representatives, particularly most of the ones who are >> powerful members of the ruling parties, view the fundamental concept of an >> Internet Society as essentially unacceptable. In that light, I think that >> revising the ISOC mission statement to align better with their view of the >> world would be to neuter the ISOC completely. I’m not sure that’s an outcome >> I would support, but I do think pretending that we aren’t doing that is a >> road to failure. > That is nonsense. > > If you begin by assuming absolute bad faith on the part of all elected > representatives ... you are not far from the truth.   Though the reality is somewhat closer to selfishness and desire for ego gratification rather than absolute bad faith, 

HH> The system and responsibilities to inner stakeholders forces them to be political and politic. The system elects representatives occasionally who vote continually, as proxy. With prediction markets, continual voting of everyone, absent a proxy, provides dissolution of grab what you can responsibility to educate the voters and coordinate votes. The inner stackholders now need be politic. Change representative democracy to an advisory role. Technocrats educate the polity. Here’s the key it seems to me, illuminated by your own working groups, coming and going. Spread the meme of drafting and focus groups. We see how well it works, reaching consensus. Speak about it political beyond your dominion and get politic. Just my way of thinking.

and nearly all elected representatives rather than absolutely all of them.   People do sometimes run for public office for unselfish reasons, but (a) the good ones tend to be weeded out by the system, and (b) those who aren't weeded out tend to be corrupted.

HH> you see, the system biases this behavior.

> The pathology of US regulation is that industry assumes that all > regulation will be utterly unacceptable, resists all attempts to come > to any form of common understanding and eventually ends up being hit > by a series of punitive regulations that are then taken as evidence > that the system is broken. No, industry assumes that legislators can often be bought, and that the purpose of legislation is to tilt the playing field in the favor of the buyers.   Any meaningful regulation is therefore likely to be seen as an insult to people who paid good money to have things go their way. Keith

HH> all due respect towards your assumption filled with cynical estimation of others motivations, with the dynamic of making things happen within each Corp I think it’s more "beg forgiveness than ask permission" sort of limerick way. Were you to see what perspective I offer I would be grateful.

Robert