[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5, etc.

Sat Jan 25 00:29:37 UTC 2014

IMHO and with all due respect,

 take your meds and come back with something that makes sense and not superfluous super inflated empty definitions and inventing new acronyms and stupid things like "statUS-quo"

Thanks
-Jorge

> On Jan 24, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> 
> It appears that this debate is iterative between status-quo and MSism. Hmm...
> They do not oppose: they confort.
> 
> 
> At 22:06 24/01/2014, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> If we want to make progress into the governance of ICANN and then its further internationalization we should also consider making the constituencies actual members of the organization regardless of the host country.
> 
> Unicode has well documented technical globalization as internationalization+localization+categorization with the purpose of removing the cultural barriers to trade, Internationalization concerns the medium (International English) in case of text oriented Internet exchanges. In the trade (IoT) case internationalization concerns the normative and legal areas.
> 
> Until now the language being used was fuzzy, ICANN/IANA globalization not being defined. Now it is "internationaliztion", i.e. the e-colonization of the world by standards. A global war issue well known by those on this list who are members of SDOs, that opposes the Anglo-Saxons interests/economical culture and most of the rest of the world.
> 
> Thank you George for this clarifying lapsus calami.
> 
> 
> At 22:12 24/01/2014, Mike Roberts wrote:
>> (a) We ought to give up the distinction between political and technical solutions to the purported ICANN/IANA representation/oversight problem.  The dictionary tells us that politics is  "the practice and theory of influencing other people."  By that measure, there is no basic difference between the IETF appointing itself the guardian of the IP protocol standards, and the GAC coming down on the subject of acceptable TLD's incorporating country and regional names.
> 
> Totally correct. IETF fights to impose a complicate (hence vulnerable) outdated (by its own initial standards) technology we cannot decently trust anymore. The additional confusion entertained by the industry is to hide this deliberate strtegy behind a supposed US domination strategy. The industry procures for an high return the USG network tools.
> 
> 
>> The solution to a relativistic IG representation environment will inevitably be relative.  Is there an arrangement on which we might reach consensus that is materially better than the good but imperfect arrangement we have today?  Is it possible to construct an evidence-based way of reaching that consensus?
> 
> What better than the statUS-quo as some are calling it?
> Except some activists it is likely that everyone agree. Sao Paulo is about this:
> 
> 1. get rid of the people centrism some want to impose to the "internet" through a political debate of surface.
> 2. a serious, professionnal, political debate among the real stakeholders (the real internet holders) to review their specifications for the OpenStand improved Internet.
> 
> 
> Except George Sadowsky's now corrected odd good will initiative and CS professional activists, who is against Mike's realist vision?
> 
> M G
> 
> 