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

[Seth Johnson]

And yes, we do agree that we disagree.  You've expressed the very
shortsightedness I see broadly among all those who are getting excited
over WSIS.  There are some things that can work to an extent as
interim measures (before the day comes when it's actually a context
rooted in the people), but, for instance, those approaches are not
"borderless" (and can't be).  If you try to count on the international
arena for rights, you'll be duped.


Seth

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:45 PM, 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