[NCUC-DISCUSS] Expanding Scope of ICANN
Marc Perkel
marc at churchofreality.org
Mon Oct 28 18:28:16 CET 2013
What the USG is doing is highly illegal. However because the president
and congress choose to ignore the constitution they can get away with
it. And we have no right to inflict ourselves on the rest of the world.
On 10/28/2013 10:18 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
> The NSA is a product of the USG, the officials of the USG gave the NSA
> the mandate and funding to do what they have been doing for ages, I
> hardly believe that ICANN is even close to be the right organization
> to tackle that issue.
>
> If you are a US Citizen, call your Senators/Representatives and
> express your opinion, and put pressure on the big pockets that fund
> the lobbying apparatus in Washington DC so they change the agenda
> accordingly.
>
> Protocol Names and Numbers have NOTHING to do with the NSA, so it is
> not in the scope of ICANN to fix ANYTHING related to it.
>
> -J
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Marc Perkel
> <marc at churchofreality.org <mailto:marc at churchofreality.org>> wrote:
>
> I think ICANN needs to increase its scope. I think ICANN needs to
> become a UN alternative forum to fill a vacuum to address issues
> like the NSA spying. If ICANN doesn't do it - who will?
>
>
> On 10/27/2013 11:01 PM, 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131028/14e6e700/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list