[discuss] Conference: ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to Sao Paulo, and Beyond, Singapore 21 March 2014
mg at telepresse.com
Thu Feb 27 12:51:29 UTC 2014
At 12:54 27/02/2014, George Sadowsky wrote:
>I am often very confused by the terms that are used in some
>contributions to this list. As a result, I skip those contributions
>because they don't add to my understanding of anything. Creating
>new words is counterproductive. If we don't have a common language,
>then there is little hope for mutual understanding.
>I've been involved with Internet and networking, rather intensively,
>for more than 25 years, and I am not familiar with this term or
>others used. If they are meant to clarify a discussion and move it
>forward, they are clearly failing to meet that goal. There is no
>value added in using terms whose meanings are not commonly
>understood and agreed upon.
I fully understand that you do not want to hear a concept you
determinedly oppose or ignore for more than 25 years at a cost of M$
78 per year + innovation freeze for the Internet community.
The problem in refusing to consider the active revival of this
delayingly opposed concept is that you give the distinct feeling that
it is because it addresses your problem in a way differeing from
yours. You look a status-quolder and an antistakeholder.
The thing is simple for me to report:
- You say the solution is to change ICANN within its M$ 78 budget.
- Others say the solution is to respect ICANN as one of the
stakeholders of a function it shares with free FLOSS, historic or
national others. And decided to carry an experimentation along your rules.
When you say you do not read them, you lead observers to conclude:
George is afraid to share the M$ 78 (what they do not seem to ask),
and wants to keep his grip on the RFC 6852 "huge bounty".
The same as they will note that Steve has eventually bluntly acted
upon his 2009 plans to make the VGNICS work more difficult, i.e. more
costly - since they claim to be voluntaries on a 0ex budget. And Bill
asks them to hold directed, dedicated, staffed international
meetings. And Gregory asks them to get explained (I keep to the road
governance metaphor) their "car" solutions in using his "horse"
terminology. Etc. So much opposition without any technical comment,
leads to think they are technically right.
What I observe is that they do not seem to want to "clarify" in
another way than the IETF and IUCG claimed one: "We reject kings,
presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus [,] running code
[, and living mode]". In refusing to read them I am afraid, George,
you are not "conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept".
Again, these is only my single unique non-authoritative press cent.
The second cent is up to you Folks.
More information about the discuss