[discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance

Mon Jan 13 09:51:46 UTC 2014

William 

Good morning, am glad you have made this factual clarification re ICANN. I
hope this settles matter re ICANN commitment. Fadi Chehade also made similar
remarks in ICANN 48 in Argentina.

Another factual remark (as have seen remarks concerning 1Net and ICANN) is
that ICANN contributes as one of many stakeholders to discussion in 1Net.

Best

Nigel 

From:  William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Date:  Monday, January 13, 2014 8:36 AM
To:  JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Cc:  1Net List <discuss at 1net.org>, Worldwide At Large
<at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on
Internet Governance

jfc

If you¹re going to cross-post things said on one list to another with a
different audience and discussion going on, it would be better form to not
cherry pick what you're quoting.  For context, the comment below was in
reply to Fadi¹s statement in the interview,

> "The world is seeking and growing ever more anxious to see an independent,
> globally-accountable ICANN where no one government, no one organization, no
> one individual has oversight or rights higher than the others,² Chehade
> says. ³I believe this is fundamental to the spirit of the Internet as well.
> Equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance
> of this global resource.²
> 
> http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/01/10/icanns-fadi-chehade-says-we-have-18-mo
> nths-to-find-new-governance-for-a-single-internet-or-else/?angle=silicon

On might have thought that statements like this and related moves, along
with the Montevideo declaration language on globalization, would lead
certain CS people to pause and reconsider a little the narrative they're
spinning about the supposed strategies of imperialist forces and the false
consciousness and culpability of civil society collaborationists who would
like an actual multistakeholder platform to work.  After all, the direction
being pushed in addresses their central long-standing complaint, and the
resistance to it now comes from other directions where folks are not
convinced of the need or comfortable with the possible pace‹another MS
dialogue that needs to happen.  Nevertheless, some CS folks refuse to take
yes for an answer when there¹s other agendas in play, so singing the same
old song they¹ve been stuck on since 2003 is preferred. I guess there¹s a
whole structure of incentives that remains powerful.  This is frustrating
and may help to preclude the very outcome they claim to favor, but who¹s got
the bandwidth to spend all day every day responding to this stuff.  It¹d be
easier to convince creationists to consider the evidence for evolution. I¹m
reluctantly coming to the conclusion that nothing can be done about it so
the reality-based community just needs to go forward regardless and live
with the catcalls etc.

As for the rest below, um, er, ok, thanks.

Best

Bill

On Jan 12, 2014, at 8:22 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> Bill, 
> 
> Thank you for your today two todays sighs of concerns because they cover all
> our difficulties:
> 
>> At 12:50 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote:
>> And yet we have numerous loud voices saying on the 1Net, governance, Best
>> Bits, etc. mailing lists that 1Net and the Sao Paulo meeting are controlled
>> by ICANN and other dark forces committed to preserving the status quo and US
>> domination and so global civil society must rally to resist these oppressors
>> etc etc
> 
> In our wanting to be a people centered information society (Geneva
> declaration), what counts is the result for the people, i.e. the way the
> hardware and software support brainware, i.e. an adequate law due to an
> adequate code.
> 
> Let us consider the sense of the words we are confronted with:
> 
> 1. An equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and
> governance of any, global or not, resource of other people is an unacceptable
> intrusive tyrannical interference with their rights, dignity, privacy,
> intimacy (that is condemned by the Geneva declaration IRT to States) - unless
> each of these persons has freely demanded it for themselves.
> 
> 2. Yet Charade¹s claim sounds perfectly right.
> 
> We are, therefore, in a double constraint situation.
> 
> Where is the bug? It is in the wrong claim that ICANN would be a unique global
> resource.
> 
> The reality is that:
> 
> - the digital namespace is unlimited and the IETF to some minor technical
> extent and ICANN for political reasons have made it a scarcity.
> 
> - the same limitation spirit, which was advisable for a proof of concept, has
> continued to prevail, polluting the Internet technological development and
> bogging down innovation in its initial uniform governance and opposing
> innovation.
> 
> 
> The lack of innovation oriented technical governance has resulted in the
> observed lack of architectural evolution that the users of the world need.
> Snowden is not actually reporting NSA misbehavior; he is reporting the
> obsolescence of the 1983 internet when compared with the 2014 world which
> permitted it. ICANN as a unique global necessary resource has become a
> technically outdated bug that has to be corrected. This is not the sole
> architectonical update to consider, and so it should be carried out in a
> concerted manner, i.e.:
> 
> 1. each multistakeholder, i.e. each person, entity, organization, government,
> etc. having to subsidiarily decide how to correct his/her/its "ICANN global
> unicity bug", must be informed of his/her/its existing and individually or
> cooperatively devisable options, and decide by his/her/its own on their merits
> and mutual best advantages.
> 
> 2. the same validation and possible enhancement consistency process should be
> carried out and permanently continued in every area of the digisphere (i.e.
> the digital part of reality) in order to ensure the human right to a complete
> decent, efficient, and protected entire life.
> 
> This will digitally extend the multi-globally fully interoperable human + bots
> diversity where every person is on an equal footing with every other person.
> 
> NB. The US is not particularly implied in all this (except exercising
> entrepreneurship in that area without sufficiently imagining the
> consequences): it is only that the American language did not help the
> conceptual transition from a uniform to a diversified global space. This is
> embodied in the Internetting project (IEN 48) by the ³loose sense²
> appropriately given by Vint Cerf to the word ³local². Transition was in the
> evolution of the sense to be innovatively applied to ³local². However, a
> ³loose sense² is not something that developers, politicians, salespeople, and
> computers understand or agree upon easily. So instead to apply to trades,
> virtualities, other technologies, competitive alternatives, etc. ³local²
> stayed uniquely geographically monopolistic.
> 
> 
>> At 10:35 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote:
>> Volunteering to try and help facilitate a process shouldnt require body
>> armor. 
> 
> I am afraid that humans being humans, it is the rule everywhere.
>  
> The reason why is, from experience, the inability of humans to understand each
> other in changing contexts, and moreover when people must understand each
> other over the specific improvement of the context.
> 
> You have those who want to carry the change, those who want to protect their
> status, and those who are waiting in order to see what happens. It is very
> frustrating for the first ones to be delayed, opposed, and passed over by the
> second ones who benefit from their positions, and not to be supported by the
> third ones who feel that they do not know enough to decide who is right.
> 
> I found, however, that you may avoid the weight of the body armor, enjoy the
> human show, and obtain what you want in trying to understand what really
> happens and use brainware (networked assisted cooperation) hacks. This is why
> I plead for software (organizational) and hardware (material) work that may
> help in demonstrating your point of view without having to resort to
> martyrdom.
>  
> The IETF prefers ³running code² to ³kings, presidents, and voting² (you could
> also add ³christs²). One can give a pretty scientifically acceptable
> explanation why and a successfully experienced ³how to² guide, but this will
> be for another day.
>  
> Cheers.
> jfc

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140113/2b8e93fb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140113/2b8e93fb/smime.p7s>