[At-Large] [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Mon Jan 13 17:59:31 UTC 2014
I trust you will not mind if I were to cross-post this entire thread? At
any rate I will claim privilege on account the first post in the thread
originated from my hand.
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 2:22 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your today two todays sighs of concerns because they cover
> all our difficulties:
> At 12:50 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote:
>> And yet we have numerous loud voices saying on the 1Net, governance, Best
>> Bits, etc. mailing lists that 1Net and the Sao Paulo meeting are controlled
>> by ICANN and other dark forces committed to preserving the status quo and
>> US domination and so global civil society must rally to resist these
>> oppressors etc etc
> In our wanting to be a people centered information society (Geneva
> declaration), what counts is the result for the people, i.e. the way the
> hardware and software support brainware, i.e. an adequate law due to an
> adequate code.
> Let us consider the sense of the words we are confronted with:
> 1. An equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and
> governance of any, global or not, resource of other people is an
> unacceptable intrusive tyrannical interference with their rights, dignity,
> privacy, intimacy (that is condemned by the Geneva declaration IRT to
> States) - unless each of these persons has freely demanded it for
> 2. Yet Charade's claim sounds perfectly right.
> We are, therefore, in a double constraint situation.
> Where is the bug? It is in the wrong claim that ICANN would be a unique
> global resource.
> The reality is that:
> - the digital namespace is unlimited and the IETF to some minor technical
> extent and ICANN for political reasons have made it a scarcity.
> - the same limitation spirit, which was advisable for a proof of concept,
> has continued to prevail, polluting the Internet technological development
> and bogging down innovation in its initial uniform governance and opposing
> The lack of innovation oriented technical governance has resulted in the
> observed lack of architectural evolution that the users of the world need.
> Snowden is not actually reporting NSA misbehavior; he is reporting the
> obsolescence of the 1983 internet when compared with the 2014 world which
> permitted it. ICANN as a unique global necessary resource has become a
> technically outdated bug that has to be corrected. This is not the sole
> architectonical update to consider, and so it should be carried out in a
> concerted manner, i.e.:
> 1. each multistakeholder, i.e. each person, entity, organization,
> government, etc. having to subsidiarily decide how to correct his/her/its
> "ICANN global unicity bug", must be informed of his/her/its existing and
> individually or cooperatively devisable options, and decide by his/her/its
> own on their merits and mutual best advantages.
> 2. the same validation and possible enhancement consistency process should
> be carried out and permanently continued in every area of the digisphere
> (i.e. the digital part of reality) in order to ensure the human right to a
> complete decent, efficient, and protected entire life.
> This will digitally extend the multi-globally fully interoperable human +
> bots diversity where every person is on an equal footing with every other
> NB. The US is not particularly implied in all this (except exercising
> entrepreneurship in that area without sufficiently imagining the
> consequences): it is only that the American language did not help the
> conceptual transition from a uniform to a diversified global space. This is
> embodied in the Internetting project (IEN 48) by the "loose sense"
> appropriately given by Vint Cerf to the word "local". Transition was in the
> evolution of the sense to be innovatively applied to "local". However, a
> "loose sense" is not something that developers, politicians, salespeople,
> and computers understand or agree upon easily. So instead to apply to
> trades, virtualities, other technologies, competitive alternatives, etc.
> "local" stayed uniquely geographically monopolistic.
> At 10:35 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote:
>> Volunteering to try and help facilitate a process shouldnt require body
> I am afraid that humans being humans, it is the rule everywhere.
> The reason why is, from experience, the inability of humans to understand
> each other in changing contexts, and moreover when people must understand
> each other over the specific improvement of the context.
> You have those who want to carry the change, those who want to protect
> their status, and those who are waiting in order to see what happens. It is
> very frustrating for the first ones to be delayed, opposed, and passed over
> by the second ones who benefit from their positions, and not to be
> supported by the third ones who feel that they do not know enough to decide
> who is right.
> I found, however, that you may avoid the weight of the body armor, enjoy
> the human show, and obtain what you want in trying to understand what
> really happens and use brainware (networked assisted cooperation) hacks.
> This is why I plead for software (organizational) and hardware (material)
> work that may help in demonstrating your point of view without having to
> resort to martyrdom.
> The IETF prefers "running code" to "kings, presidents, and voting" (you
> could also add "christs"). One can give a pretty scientifically acceptable
> explanation why and a successfully experienced "how to" guide, but this
> will be for another day.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large