<div dir="ltr"><br><div>No new continents or world order has been created, nor supra national governments since Johannes Gutenberg invented the type printer.</div><div><br></div><div>The universe evolve at a very low pace, I bet you we have plenty of time to resolve this.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-J</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marc Perkel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marc@churchofreality.org" target="_blank">marc@churchofreality.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Jorge,<br>
<br>
If you don't think this is a new world order then you don't fully
appreciate how fast the Internet is causing humanity to evolve. The
Internet barely existed 25 years ago and is now central to humanity.
You also have to assume that the rate of change that has happened
over the last 25 years is going to continue. The Internet is a
target that is rapidly moving forward and we have to thing forward
to where the Internet is going to be and not limit ourselves to
where it is and where it's been.<br>
<br>
We need to get out ahead of it and be proactive.<br>
<br>
If we assume that in the future we will have far more powerful
devices, maybe even computer chip implants, how much control do we
want governments to have over the chip in our brain? When we can
send thoughts from one brain to another do we want the governments
to be able to intercept that? Do we want them to be able to send
messages into our minds?<br>
<br>
And if you don't think we'll be able to do that then come back in 25
years and we'll see. <br>
<br>
The Internet is creating a new world order. It's part of the
evolution of the universe. And if we don't deal with it then we
might incur the Wrath of Darwin!<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>On 10/28/2013 10:08 AM, Jorge Amodio
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>"New World Order" what are you talking about ?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No doubt the Internet as any other major advancements in
technology as a telecommunication service has changed
substantially the way we exchange information and trade goods
and services, it has also been an enabling factor for people
to get their voices heard, but from this to be a "New World
Order" that is too far fetched and a fools dream. Your
mothership has just departed planet earth.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Once again, ICANN is a consequence of how the Internet
protocols and architecture were designed requiring uniqueness
and coordination for only a part of the elements that conform
the Internet, and I don't think that we'll ever see and RFC
describing the protocols of the "New World Order."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If in this forum we lose the focus of ICANN's role and
mission we are setting up the path for a major failure.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-J</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Marc
Perkel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marc@churchofreality.org" target="_blank">marc@churchofreality.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I have to disagree.<br>
<br>
The model that the only actors I think is a paradigm that
evolution is going to erase. The new paradigm is a wold
community where governments are just one of many seats at
the table. I think the Internet is making a new world order
where people like us can get in on the ground floor and do
it right.
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On 10/28/2013 12:02 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
People are pretty clueless about the fundamental
limits of the<br>
international arena. Rights simply don't have the
same standing<br>
there, and governments (via their executive branches,
I expect in<br>
probably every case) are the actors that conclude
decisions.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Dan Krimm <<a href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com" target="_blank">dan@musicunbound.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The only way I can make sense of Fadi's actions here
(granted I'm not<br>
expert on all the details because I haven't had time
to absorb it all) is<br>
sort of in the guise of "foreign affairs" and
"treaties" if one were to<br>
compare ICANN to a national government institution.<br>
<br>
I see your point that general IG is going to affect
ICANN, sure that makes<br>
sense. But I don't see ICANN as the *forum* where
that is going to happen.<br>
More like: ICANN would do well to be represented in
that forum as such.<br>
<br>
In any case, this stuff is not likely to emerge *out
of* ICANN in any<br>
significant institutional manner, so far as I can
see (and I wouldn't want<br>
it to, given ICANN's continuing dirty laundry).<br>
<br>
I support these discussions at IGF, etc. That seems
an appropriate<br>
institutional venue to have them. And let NCUC
members be robustly present<br>
in force, by all means. And I have no doubt the
rest of ICANN's community<br>
will be there to the extent they care and allocate
the resources.<br>
<br>
I just would not feel good about the prospect of
*building* World/IG *out<br>
of* ICANN as an institutional platform. Not good at
all. Pretty jittery,<br>
in fact.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of
the author alone and do<br>
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's
employer.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 1:37 PM +0800 10/28/13, William Drake wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
+1 I recognize how the optics might look to folks
who feel adamant about<br>
ICANN staying within its bounded mandate, but the
stuff going on in the<br>
larger IG environment affects ICANN's ability to
continue to work that<br>
mandate, and will do so much more in the future.
With all the other I*<br>
orgs getting on board efforts to try to build a
coalition to sustain<br>
multistakeholderism in the face of
multilateralism, I can't really see how<br>
Fadi and ICANN could just wash their hands of it
and say sorry, you'll<br>
have to do the lifting without us, particularly
when one of the biggest<br>
battles is precisely about "us."<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
On Oct 28, 2013, at 12:59 PM, avri doria<br>
<<mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@ella.com" target="_blank">avri@ella.com</a>><a href="mailto:avri@ella.com" target="_blank">avri@ella.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
In terms of legitimacy, isn't one of the topics
that needs to be explored<br>
internationalisation of ICANN, and IANA? Isn't
that a topic at the top of<br>
the list? That seems to be in scope.<br>
<br>
And the ICANN Board seems to be on-board as Fadi
was meeting with a<br>
subset of them (including the Chair) and AC/SO
leadership every morning.<br>
I wasn't in the meetings, and don't know who the
rep from gnso was since<br>
Jonathan wasn't there, so don't know what the
level of buy in was, but I<br>
heard no complaints on the ground.<br>
<br>
So whatever we might say about scope creep Fadi
is not being renegade.<br>
<br>
As for scope creep Fadi and the leaders of the
other I* seem to be acting<br>
in coordinated faction, so it is within their
scope, and would seem to be<br>
in scope for any one of them to act on I*'s
behalf in organizational<br>
talks with governments on a meeting planning.<br>
<br>
So, in this case at least, I see no fundamental
problem of overreach by<br>
Fadi. And, whether he fully understand what it
means, he seems to be<br>
carrying the banner of multistakeholderism into
these discussions.<br>
<br>
So, at least this once, I am not ready to join
in Fadi-attack.<br>
<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>><a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>