[NCUC-DISCUSS] Scope creep and renegade was Re: NCUC Statement on PRISM?

[Jorge Amodio]

What democracy ? I didn't vote for Fadi ... Or any of the board members

-Jorge

> On Oct 28, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In my view there is no better alternative to these experiments with ever improving MSism at all level of the governance architecture.  Sure the ICANN implementation, as well as the other implementations in other I* and IGF as well as in other subject areas, need great improvement,  But for now, in my opinion, the are the best approaches there are on participatory democracy governance.
> 
> Of course we have to be careful what we are asking for.  And we have to be involved every step of the way.
> 
> Obviously we have a different view of scope.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 28 Oct 2013, at 02:01, Dan Krimm wrote:
>> 
>> To the extent that Fadi is trying to address Internet Governance generally
>> (forgive me if I am reading too much into his actions?), that would seem to
>> be out of scope, regardless of whether ICANN/IANA and general-IG both would
>> benefit from internationalization.
>> 
>> As for multistakeholderism, in principle this all sounds great, but in
>> practice it seems to have fallen far short of its intended potential.  In
>> practice is where the rubber hits the road, and in practice MSism at ICANN
>> has recently fallen prey to ad hoc action when some "more equal than
>> others" stakeholders decide the outcome is not to their liking.  They
>> apparently start to think along the lines of "God is not Mocked."
>> 
>> I see MSism as still an experimental work-in-progress, hardly with all the
>> bugs worked out, and not necessarily "ready for prime time" in terms of
>> overall world governance.  The only reason it has worked as free from
>> collapse at ICANN as it has up to now, I think, is that the big Powers That
>> Be in the world (nations and big corporations) hadn't really seen ICANN as
>> all that meaningful in their general scheme of things.  The more important
>> ICANN's actions become, the more the big powers will pound on it to shape
>> it to their desires.  I think you've only seen the bare beginning of this
>> in the ad hoc shenanigans of the last few years.  Just beginning to rev up
>> the engines.  MSism has not reached up out of the play-pen to play with the
>> Big Boys yet, as far as I can tell, and it remains to be seen how it will
>> fare if it is brought up to the Big Time.
>> 
>> That's a big risk, IMHO.  Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
>> And if it doesn't turn out how you expected, what then?  This whole MSism
>> experiment is a huge exercise in unintended consequences (in the gap
>> between theory and practice), if you ask me.  It's worth doing the
>> experiment, but I'd be more comfortable if the experiment were closer to
>> completion before trying it out on anything *really* important.  I don't
>> see it anywhere near that point, yet.
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
>> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 12:59 AM -0400 10/28/13, avri doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> In terms of legitimacy, isn't one of the topics that needs to be explored
>>> internationalisation of ICANN, and IANA? Isn't that a topic at the top of
>>> the list? That seems to be in scope.
>>> 
>>> And the ICANN Board seems to be on-board as Fadi was meeting with a subset
>>> of them (including the Chair) and AC/SO leadership every morning. I wasn't
>>> in the meetings, and don't know who the rep from gnso was since Jonathan
>>> wasn't there, so don't know what the level of buy in was, but I heard no
>>> complaints on the ground.
>>> 
>>> So whatever we might say about scope creep Fadi is not being renegade.
>>> 
>>> As for scope creep Fadi and the leaders of the other I* seem to be acting
>>> in coordinated faction, so it is within their scope, and would seem to be
>>> in scope for any one of them to act on I*'s behalf in organizational
>>> talks with governments on a meeting planning.
>>> 
>>> So, in this case at least, I see no fundamental problem of overreach by
>>> Fadi.  And, whether he fully understand what it means, he seems to be
>>> carrying the banner of multistakeholderism into these discussions.
>>> 
>>> So, at least this once, I am not ready to join in Fadi-attack.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss