From exemplary thought experiments to jeopardy of thought: What are trust domains
Definition is the currency to understanding. Recognition is the acknowledgement of value. Public trust in mutual understanding is from their respective rights for value recognition in that established. Through core technical constructs, the Internet vests public-trust within IANA for its derivative in accordance to ICANN policies. For definition to global agreement, the aggregate trust within must remain relatively noncommodifiable. Thus ICANN accountability aligns with domain specific contracts for monetization cotangent to the IANA differential. Is the subject of monetization domains or trust? That question for recourse redresses definition when mutual understanding sustains through an integral meaning of trust.
General elements of influence evolve to constructs for national domain that culture meaning for mutual understanding. Globalization with meaning preserves equity between nations to standards of redress that sustain equitability between their citizens. Generative globalization gives measure for claimants to file discussions of merit relative jurisprudence that summons parties to file their defense. The authority of nations is the predicate to international justice that must encourage nonbinding settlement to realign domain specific accountability to trust. Thus due process for international justice starts with the credible complaint that is validated by order of their national court.
International justice that considers language, political, and cultural equilibrium to choose panel candidates from its global public community with domain knowledge, maximizes panel distribution kurtosis and neutralizes both network and geographic propinquity to parties. For privacy through anonymity of each panelist, within that distribution, such a system utilizes secure, decentralized, and open-source technology for authentication, voting and all other features. To approximate neutral panelist distribution, arguments open sequentially to candidate commentary, noted as support or opposition, and votable, such that tallies may validate position.
Those selected discuss their judgment of arguments through supporting, opposing, or neutral comments threaded to propositions that aggregate votes. Discussions occur without direct or indirect communication external to the system, except that between either claimants or defendants. Panelist contributions represent individual consensus for that proposition. Contributions then tally for panelist relative consensus such that normalized over propositions, averages to become the unweighted geometric mean for panelist consensus.
Together with that proposition nearest to the average of means weighted to propositions, bound drift for compromise. Panelists with marginal preference for either proposition may concurrently, in strict compromise, laterally draft new propositions for their positions. Those panelists whom least prefer either must be redistributed between both to be able to contribute to drafts. Time-boxed compromise that iteratively works within running consensus means, settles to exhibit some minimum distance between bounds as their closest consensus compromise, in global multistakeholder representation. In time-mean equilibrium, bounds may either enable them to defer to the greater consensus proposition with margin predetermined through panel majority, or otherwise choose both by request of alternate bound majority not in favor of the party bias in greater consensus.
With defendant flexibility for redress when claimant conditions pose no apparent and immediate threat, and flexibility does not attach any burden to claimant, at least as understood by the panel with respect to the claimant request, the panel may elect that discussions be held jointly and transparently with present, equally and equitably represented parties.
Otherwise, the selection transitions to separate yet simultaneous transparent discussions, with each party equally represented to the panel. Dual selection transitions to separate yet simultaneous transparent discussions, with parties lateral their favorable proposition, equally represented to those panelists. Every best effort towards consensus is then re-discussed by the panel for compromise. Iteratively, this enables consensus to target experiential thresholds for adjudication or otherwise adjourn for potential retrial by new panelists.
Mutual respect for difference is the fundamental recognition of freedom for others, given understanding that propinquity must impart meaning in the difference. Each right to national domain through globalization inextricably intertwines to balance world justice. Such integration to industry holds insight for improved common jurisprudence to grow global economy. Future Internet governance must continue to align with public trust on that path through just freedom in recourse.