[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5
carolina.rossini at gmail.com
Wed Jan 22 17:41:21 UTC 2014
well folks, I do believe George intent is to simply state a problem...while
Milton is actually proposing a debate on the discussion of that problem.
Anyway, just to say I agree with George statement but support the change
suggested by Avri (just for the sake of being explicit, which is always
important to prove intent later when we interpret such issues. However, I
would suggest "users from around the world"...instead of "international",
since I do feel they represent different things).
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.
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
> > 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 :-)
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss