This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.

[I-coordination] I-coordination Digest, Vol 3, Issue 70

Nathalie Coupet nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 11 13:39:25 CET 2013


Good morning Brian and Jorge,

Separating both discussions and better explaining what the Internet is would be a great starting point. 
Maybe we could create a WG that would clarify these points for all, especially for legislators and new comers. 
We could present a report to the IGF, in Brazil or just as documentation for new comers in this debate. 

My .02 cents

Nathalie

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 11, 2013, at 6:00 AM, i-coordination-request at nro.net wrote:

> Send I-coordination mailing list submissions to
>    i-coordination at nro.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    i-coordination-request at nro.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    i-coordination-owner at nro.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of I-coordination digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. There are NO ICANN Critics - the Architect is    Always Correct
>      (Techno CAT)
>   2. Re: A different model (Brian E Carpenter)
>   3. The Key Word is CONTROL - Partial or Overall (Techno CAT)
>   4. Re: A different model (Jorge Amodio)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:09:35 -0600
> From: Techno CAT <mars.techno.cat at gmail.com>
> Subject: [I-coordination] There are NO ICANN Critics - the Architect
>    is    Always Correct
> To: i-coordination at nro.net
> Message-ID:
>    <CAK41CSQPMYQqJ6O11-GbDyRjbF7ycGYuBikVjTDBoakYd7mvTg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> There are NO ICANN Critics - the Architect is Always Correct
> 
> http://www.jeffreykay.com/archives/vint_architect.jpg
> 
> Critics are SILENCED
> 
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-April/004489.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07721.html
> 
> [The ISOC IETF used to threaten to kill people's parents with
> fire-axes. Parents pass away... ending that option.]
> 
> There are NO ICANN Critics - the Architect is Always Correct
> 
> -- 
> 
> @Techno_CAT_r
> http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:29:57 +1300
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] A different model
> To: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com>
> Cc: "I-coordination at nro.net" <i-coordination at nro.net>
> Message-ID: <52A7B205.5040800 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> Jorge,
> 
> On 11/12/2013 08:00, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>> 1) The US does have a privileged position with ICANN. This is the result
>>> of history. The US invented the Internet and has driven much of its
>>> development. The US has not really done very much to influence ICANN's
>>> work, when it could have done more.
>>> 
>> 
>> If you do some research about the history of the Internet you will find out
>> that this is certainly not 100% true, so being point #1 does not give too
>> much credit to the rest.
> 
> It's true that the US only *mostly* invented the Internet, since a few
> foreigners were involved too, such as Louis Pouzin, but that doesn't affect
> the truth of the last sentence. I've always regretted that ICANN was
> founded in US jurisdiction (rather than CH which was my preferred option
> at the time, or NL which others proposed). But all the same, USG influence
> has been more threatened that real.
> 
>> Internet Governance does not stand for "governing" the Internet, and this
>> is one of the interpretations that generates all sorts of conflicts,
>> particularly when the term gets translated to other languages such as
>> Spanish.
> 
> Indeed, it was a stupid choice of word from Day One.
> 
>> While not universally accepted, and still under discussion how to interpret
>> it, out of WSIS 2005 there was some agreement on a "working" definition
>> that says:
> 
> Does anyone have a shred of respect for anything that came out of WSIS?
> 
>> "Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the
>> private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared
>> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that
>> shape the evolution and use of the Internet."
> 
> Try this and see if it makes sense:
> 
> "Atmosphere governance is the development and application by Governments, the
> private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared
> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that
> shape the evolution and use of the atmosphere."
> 
> As George pointed out, there is a great gulf between administration of
> the technical side of the Internet and regulation of the social and economic
> impact of the Internet. Mixing these two up under the G-word has led to
> enormous confusion of thought, not least right here on this list.
> 
> The best thing the IGF (and the Brazil meeting) could do is ban the
> G word and separate the two discussions.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:09:00 -0600
> From: Techno CAT <mars.techno.cat at gmail.com>
> Subject: [I-coordination] The Key Word is CONTROL - Partial or Overall
> To: i-coordination at nro.net
> Message-ID:
>    <CAK41CST3gPfDkcnc6UQ0Rh4UF4di1ahS9z2bDyXyfoNcE0BZxQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> The Key Word is CONTROL - Partial or Overall
> 
> The Centralized 1984 Orwellian Model used by IANA ICANN ISOC IETF
> claims Overall Control is Their Way... or you hit the highway...
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1174.txt
> 
> A more natural and civilized model is Peer-2-Peer.
> Recent disclosures [without IETF] of Virtual Currency help
> to demonstrate what can be done.
> 
> Many people will not participate in the toxic
> environment of the ISOC PIR IETF ICANN IANA Bully Culture.
> They are building a better Internet. They have to protect their
> work. They have no obligation to disclose their work to ICANN.
> 
> The Jack-Booted Thugs and Control Freaks who have dominated
> the Internet Eco.System for decades are well-known and
> documented. The vast majority of Internet users do not connect
> directly to the legacy Internet. One-by-one they will be carefully
> recruited to protect themselves and families from the Stasi Internet.
> 
> The Key Word is CONTROL - Partial or Overall
> -- 
> 
> @Techno_CAT_r
> http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:36:54 -0600
> From: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] A different model
> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> Cc: "I-coordination at nro.net" <i-coordination at nro.net>
> Message-ID:
>    <CAMzo+1bKyE1dHZG4ebZoFaC3uw=Vo2QOmgVwis44LJcdAUSxhA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> comments inline
> 
>> 
>>>> 1) The US does have a privileged position with ICANN. This is the result
>>>> of history. The US invented the Internet and has driven much of its
>>>> development. The US has not really done very much to influence ICANN's
>>>> work, when it could have done more.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> If you do some research about the history of the Internet you will find
>> out
>>> that this is certainly not 100% true, so being point #1 does not give too
>>> much credit to the rest.
>> 
>> It's true that the US only *mostly* invented the Internet, since a few
>> foreigners were involved too, such as Louis Pouzin, but that doesn't affect
>> the truth of the last sentence. I've always regretted that ICANN was
>> founded in US jurisdiction (rather than CH which was my preferred option
>> at the time, or NL which others proposed). But all the same, USG influence
>> has been more threatened that real.
>> 
> 
> "Mostly" true on the invention part, on the development side as I remember
> international participation took off very quickly, particularly in
> developed
> countries that were already moving away from the technology and economics
> dominated by the old CCITT and government controlled PTTs.
> 
> 
>>> Internet Governance does not stand for "governing" the Internet, and this
>>> is one of the interpretations that generates all sorts of conflicts,
>>> particularly when the term gets translated to other languages such as
>>> Spanish.
>> 
>> Indeed, it was a stupid choice of word from Day One.
>> 
> 
> Very true.
> 
>> While not universally accepted, and still under discussion how to
>> interpret
>>> it, out of WSIS 2005 there was some agreement on a "working" definition
>>> that says:
>> 
>> Does anyone have a shred of respect for anything that came out of WSIS?
>> 
> 
> Hard to say, but it seems that it became a very lucrative career now full of
> experts. We even have schools that teach on the subject.
> 
> It reminds me about the abundance on the early days of the Internet
> of plenty of projects on paper (thick piles of yada yada) just looking to
> milk the funds out of several international organizations, particularly from
> the old continent.
> 
> 
>>> "Internet governance is the development and application by Governments,
>> the
>>> private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared
>>> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that
>>> shape the evolution and use of the Internet."
>> 
>> Try this and see if it makes sense:
>> 
>> "Atmosphere governance is the development and application by Governments,
>> the
>> private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared
>> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that
>> shape the evolution and use of the atmosphere."
>> 
> 
> Ohh, I agree with you. The definition is total vaporware and I believe just
> a
> compromise to have some outcome from the Tunis meeting and show that
> the "experts" were not sun bathing in the Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> As George pointed out, there is a great gulf between administration of
>> the technical side of the Internet and regulation of the social and
>> economic
>> impact of the Internet. Mixing these two up under the G-word has led to
>> enormous confusion of thought, not least right here on this list.
>> 
> 
> IMHO the issue is (as we can see now clearly with ICANN) that there is a
> LOT of money in play, so being in the administrative and policy development
> ecosystem became a very lucrative biz and career opportunity, and the
> involved
> parties will try to keep the ball rolling as long as possible.
> 
> I never seen on emails so many honorary titles and several paragraph
> signatures
> showing the collection and diversity of hats.
> 
> 
>> The best thing the IGF (and the Brazil meeting) could do is ban the
>> G word and separate the two discussions.
>> 
> 
> That's a very clever suggestion, that will leave as with IF ...
> 
> Cheers
> Jorge
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131210/b9e146d1/attachment-0001.html 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
> 
> 
> End of I-coordination Digest, Vol 3, Issue 70
> *********************************************



More information about the I-coordination mailing list