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

Mon Oct 28 18:46:54 CET 2013

No new continents or world order has been created, nor supra national
governments since Johannes Gutenberg invented the type printer.

The universe evolve at a very low pace, I bet you we have plenty of time to
resolve this.

-J

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marc Perkel <marc at churchofreality.org>wrote:

>  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>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> 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
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131028/30189d94/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