[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

[George Sadowsky]

Good suggestion.  I don't know whether it should be a footnote or in the text, but it's a good idea.  Send a link, please.


On Jan 22, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> 
> On 23/01/2014, at 6:41 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> 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).
> 
> I think there can be further wordsmithing between now and Brazil, but we seem to be (so far) mostly agreed on the issue definition - a huge and useful first step.
> (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).
> 
> 
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140122/76186432/attachment-0001.html>