[NCUC-DISCUSS] Scope creep and renegade was Re: NCUC Statement on PRISM?
Marc Perkel
marc at churchofreality.org
Mon Oct 28 18:37:34 CET 2013
Hi Jorge,
If you don't think this is a new world order then you don't fully
appreciate how fast the Internet is causing humanity to evolve. The
Internet barely existed 25 years ago and is now central to humanity. You
also have to assume that the rate of change that has happened over the
last 25 years is going to continue. The Internet is a target that is
rapidly moving forward and we have to thing forward to where the
Internet is going to be and not limit ourselves to where it is and where
it's been.
We need to get out ahead of it and be proactive.
If we assume that in the future we will have far more powerful devices,
maybe even computer chip implants, how much control do we want
governments to have over the chip in our brain? When we can send
thoughts from one brain to another do we want the governments to be able
to intercept that? Do we want them to be able to send messages into our
minds?
And if you don't think we'll be able to do that then come back in 25
years and we'll see.
The Internet is creating a new world order. It's part of the evolution
of the universe. And if we don't deal with it then we might incur the
Wrath of Darwin!
On 10/28/2013 10:08 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
> "New World Order" what are you talking about ?
>
> 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.
>
> 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."
>
> If in this forum we lose the focus of ICANN's role and mission we are
> setting up the path for a major failure.
>
> -J
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Marc Perkel
> <marc at churchofreality.org <mailto:marc at churchofreality.org>> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:avri at ella.com>>avri at ella.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c7ea8130/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