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

[Marc Perkel]

I have to disagree.

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.

On 10/28/2013 12:02 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> People are pretty clueless about the fundamental limits of the
> international arena.  Rights simply don't have the same standing
> there, and governments (via their executive branches, I expect in
> probably every case) are the actors that conclude decisions.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:
>> The only way I can make sense of Fadi's actions here (granted I'm not
>> expert on all the details because I haven't had time to absorb it all) is
>> sort of in the guise of "foreign affairs" and "treaties" if one were to
>> compare ICANN to a national government institution.
>>
>> I see your point that general IG is going to affect ICANN, sure that makes
>> sense.  But I don't see ICANN as the *forum* where that is going to happen.
>> More like: ICANN would do well to be represented in that forum as such.
>>
>> In any case, this stuff is not likely to emerge *out of* ICANN in any
>> significant institutional manner, so far as I can see (and I wouldn't want
>> it to, given ICANN's continuing dirty laundry).
>>
>> I support these discussions at IGF, etc.  That seems an appropriate
>> institutional venue to have them.  And let NCUC members be robustly present
>> in force, by all means.  And I have no doubt the rest of ICANN's community
>> will be there to the extent they care and allocate the resources.
>>
>> I just would not feel good about the prospect of *building* World/IG *out
>> of* ICANN as an institutional platform.  Not good at all.  Pretty jittery,
>> in fact.
>>
>> 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 1:37 PM +0800 10/28/13, William Drake wrote:
>>> +1  I recognize how the optics might look to folks who feel adamant about
>>> ICANN staying within its bounded mandate, but the stuff going on in the
>>> larger IG environment affects ICANN's ability to continue to work that
>>> mandate, and will do so much more in the future.  With all the other I*
>>> orgs getting on board efforts to try to build a coalition to sustain
>>> multistakeholderism in the face of multilateralism, I can't really see how
>>> Fadi and ICANN could just wash their hands of it and say sorry, you'll
>>> have to do the lifting without us, particularly when one of the biggest
>>> battles is precisely about "us."
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 28, 2013, at 12:59 PM, avri doria
>>> <<mailto:avri at ella.com>avri at ella.com> 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
>>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>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
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss