Slashdot Mirror

What about using the wiki approach for the formulation of laws?

My political science research project (Democracy 2.0) is looking into doing something like that as part of a future ballot initiative building web application. The site currently only makes a fleeting reference to it, but more information will be added in the near future.

Rhakka, methinks you just did a mind-meld on me. :) What you just expressed are several of the ideas behind Democracy 2.0 and a few similar efforts around the world.

On the other hand, I do have to shrug when I envision having a President handling diplomacy. Yikes! In terms of how it's handled now, I'd have to ask, "What diplomacy!?". ;)

Bravo! [serious]

On top of what you propose, there should also be a way for citizens to comment on law as it develops, using an online markup system and comment area. See the "Asynchronous Collaborative Structured Document Building & Review" links under Real-world Applications at http://www.democracy2.org/?section=library&tab=enh ancing for possible tools (albeit with some enhancements) that could be utilized.

I heartily endorse the PFIR position that ICANN must be dissolved and its work placed into the hands of a capable temporary steward. What should happen beyond that is a big question. But there's no question that ICANN has lost any and all respect from netizens from around the world due to their ongoing abject stupidity.

And despite my major disagreement with Auerbach over his anti-small business, pro confusion idea of unlimited gTLD's (really a matter of democratic contention), I also endorse his lawsuit to shine the light on ICANN's finances. He has a clear right under the law to inspect these records at any time in an unfettered manner. If ICANN is to increase its budget ten-fold, then obviously the board needs to completely understand how money was being spent previously. In addition, I heartily agree with Auerbach's vivid descriptions of ICANN's empire-building management and limp-wristed board (Auerbach an exception, of course).

As is expected coming from the director of Democracy 2.0, I have to go well beyond Auerbach's strong concerns about Lynn's idea to remove any representative aspects of ICANN. Anything short of having a global direct democracy deciding Internet infrastructural policy is unacceptable. Obviously, how this deliberative/decisionmaking system would be set up is chock full of monster details that no one person or small group can handle.

I propose an open process for developing a constitution/charter for the substitute organization. This could be an open source document that's developed with wide participation using a tool like D3E (Digital Document Discourse Environment). This charter would define how all the parties involved with the Internet would come together (both online and offline) to effectively develop Internet policies. To start off, I also propose that a committee of roundly acceptable participants (perhaps those of the PFIR) craft the rough draft of this charter and act as the primary author through its initial stages. Later (perhaps within a year or so), the charter would be opened to democratic alteration via processes that the charter itself outlines.

Once the charter has been completed and democratically approved, the temporary steward would then hand over control to the managing organization that would be outlined in the charter. Then, all policy issues (perhaps except the overly technical ones) would be resolved via public discourse, deliberation and decision via democratic means.

Wow. They have predicted the rise of Democracy 2.0 in just 10 years. I had better get crackin! :)

Also note the EDD initiatives forming here and here.

See me in clips at my site (bottom of page). I'm the nerd with the bulging belly. :) [wait, "nerd" isn't a good distinguishing factor in this group]

I think we (100+ of us) were very effective in making a lot of noice about the cause to either repeal the DMCA or at least clean up the stuff related to fair use. We can't let another Dmitry be arrested with the unconstitutional provisions of this bad law.

The main downer of course is that there wasn't a lot more people (esp. programmers) there. I say it's high time for programmers to shake off their apathy and become Free Speech activists. Our country needs us.

Steve Magruder