[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

Thu Jan 23 02:20:53 UTC 2014

Marilla,

Good point about no such thing as TMI when you move something out of its original context into a new context.

My concern is to keep the problem statement short enough so that people can read and comprehend it easily.  OTOH it's pretty short right now.  I'd be interested in your suggestions re links in various places in the statement.

On Jan 22, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister at chambers.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> 
> (I'd suggest a link in statement one to a full description of the IANA description and process, including the role of Verisign in publishing the root zone file and its contract with NTIA, but think the "vetting" language is sufficient to go on with).
> 
> I agree with this suggestion (adding a link) not only to the sake of clarity, but also based on the idea that we want others to be able to comment and engage. Giving access to further information and background sources is an important way to achieve that. Please bear in mind that some of us replicate messages that consolidate discussions (like George's) in our own regional lists. There is no "TMI" in this case.
> Thanks
> Marília
> 
>  
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
>> 
>> The steps here could be 
>> - 1st - do we agree on the criteria George list? (CR: I do). Are there any others? (CR: maybe something regarding transparency that would both support trust by users and accountability?)
>> - 2nd - list and debate all the proposals available so far regarding item "6" of George's statement. (Which Milton has initiated.)
>> - 3rd - understand what is feasible under national and international law (CR: I actually do not see feasibility of one of his proposals)
>> 
>> But a step 0 is - what are our goals with this debate? This probably would help regard our focus.
>> 
>> Tks
>> 
>> Carol
>>   
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Structurally, there are three basic options for getting globalized governance:
>> >
>> > 1) unilateral globalism, i.e. a single state achieves global hegemony (the status quo IANA)
>> 
>> What is not working today ?
>> 
>> > 2) multilateral globalism, i.e., individual nation-states negotiate a universal agreement
>> 
>> ala WCIT ? Would love to watch that conference.
>> 
>> > 3) denationalization, i.e., delegation to a transnational private actor
>> 
>> I like this one. I vote for Kim DotCom to take it over :-)
>> 
>> -J
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Carolina Rossini 
>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
>> Open Technology Institute
>> New America Foundation
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marília Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> 
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140122/720ee7bb/attachment.html>