[NCUC-DISCUSS] Expanding Scope of ICANN

[Jorge Amodio]

I'm not a lawyer and qualified to judge if it is illegal or not, are you ?
If so, just sue the USG.

-J


On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Marc Perkel <marc at churchofreality.org>wrote:

>  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>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
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131028/e6105e81/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