<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 class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><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@<u></u>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>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.<u></u>ncuc.org</a>><a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.<u></u>ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<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/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<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/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<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/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<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/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>