[discuss] [governance] NTIA statement

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Nick,

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org>wrote:

> Dear Seun, inline responses
>
> As per the NetMundial, i agree with Avri that from recent happenings,
> ICANN-IANA related issues may carry the majority of the agenda which
> ofcourse was not the only reason why the event was conjured in the first
> place. However since the ICANN-IANA discussion will start from ICANN49 i
> think some foundational progress will have been made to further lighten up
> the NetMundial agenda to accommodate the other half of the goal which is
> largely related to mass surveillance.
>
>
> I think if NetMundial is consumed with ICANN issues that will be both a
> mistake and a huge missed opportunities. Finding a way to agree on
> principles, and what is, and is not, appropriate for IG policy to address
> would be a significant added value; there is also no other global forum
> designed to produce outcomes along these lines. The discussion of
> internationalizing ICANN has a home for discussions: ICANN.
>

Okay maybe i should clarify there. When i say ICANN-IANA issue, i am not
referring to internationalizing ICANN but Globalization of IANA as per the
recent NTIA release. There is no doubt ICANN has been given the task to
work with other I* to come up with an appropriate proposals for the
process. 1Net (which whether we like it or not =ICANN IG space) is already
a Co-organiser of NetMundial, which gives the opportunity to have a brother
multistakeholder environment (that goes beyond the regular
multi-stakeholder settings within ICANN itself) to discuss the IANA
globalization and charter a possible direction. It will actually not be
doing "due diligence" if such remained within the ICANN meetings/processes
itself. So i think 1Net will be taking advantage of upcoming NetMundial to
reach a brother scope.


> I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with recent development on
> ICANN-IANA, as it is good news. However we should also not let that
> overwhelm the other present concerns. Lets remember that the ICANN-IANA
> processes is to prevent the future "what-IFs" while mass surveillance on
> the other hand is currently happening and we should not neglect that.
>
>
> "we" cannot solve national security issues. All we can do is insist that
> the various aspects of national security use of data and the rules by which
> non-nationals are treated are dealt with - in the fora where they are
> already under discussion.
>

This is the point; for me, it goes beyond national security, as i think
that is just one side of it. There is personal security, organisation
security and even the global security at stake. If there are indeed fora
where issues like these are discussed and the voices from such forums are
indeed recognised then why not, we go for it through such forums, until
then we stick to the forum we know. (by the way the access.org seem
un-reachable).

The thing is we take surveillance as starting point and when we have raised
so much awareness, we divert to other topics and then conclude that
surveillance place is no longer here. Again i am in no way saying other
topics are not also important but one is not necessarily more than the
other.

Cheers!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140317/a3a864c0/attachment.html>