Rushworth M. Kidder is a thoughtful ethicist who wrote years ago for the
Christian Science Monitor. Globalethics.org appears to be his current sandbox.
There's more to read about his approach at
http://www.globalethics.org/corp/keynotes.html
Looking over his stuff, I see he tries to frame things not in terms of right
versus wrong, but in terms of conflicts between right and right... desirable
values that are in contention. So, if I could summarize the grand dilemma of the
DNS mess for him (restating what's been said over and over for many months now),
the inciting issue was whether all gTLDS should be constituted (or
reconstituted) as shared registries under public stewardship, or whether
specific gTLDS should be constituted under private control. That's the key VALUE
conflict that hasn't been settled yet, and much of what's been going on here
involves jockeying for power and position to implement a decision.
That's why Chuck instantly recognizes the tension between consensus and
diversity in Kidder's elements as Stef presented them. Keep in mind that Kidder
doesn't present an absolute formula to generate answers to all ethical dilemmas,
just a method for thinking about them.
Most of the veterans of the DNS debate have made their positions fairly clear on
this central value conflict, resolving the dilemma for themselves by phrasing
things in terms of angels versus demons (socialism versus freedom, elitism vs.
innovation, responsibility vs. greed, enlightenment vs. selfishness, etc.). I'm
sure Kidder would urge you folks to get past that.
There are indeed material reasons why certain players must remain committed to
specific approaches, but both sides include people who's primary motivation goes
beyond financial self-interest (keeping in mind that people can always invoke
some ideology to justify their self-interest).
By the way, I'm not clear where Karl Auerbach stands on that value conflict
right now, and I don't see what the members of the ICANN board may be saying
about. I'm curious to know. It may be more fashionable to thrash over how to
define constituencies now, but the central dilemma is still unresolved.
cgomes@internic.net wrote:
>
> Stef,
>
> Excellent stake in the ground. I would just emphasize one
> thing regarding consensus that I believe you also pointed
> out. Consensus is important with regard to universal
> interconnection but is not necessary on all issues. If we
> try to get even a rough consensus on some issues, we will
> run into a conflict with value #2, diversity.
>
> I sincerely believe with you that consensus on common values
> is the right place to start because our values should be the
> basis of all our consensus building exercises.
Happy New Year folks,
Craig Simon