Re: [At-Large] [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance
jfc If you’re going to cross-post things said on one list to another with a different audience and discussion going on, it would be better form to not cherry pick what you're quoting. For context, the comment below was in reply to Fadi’s statement in the interview,
"The world is seeking and growing ever more anxious to see an independent, globally-accountable ICANN where no one government, no one organization, no one individual has oversight or rights higher than the others,” Chehade says. “I believe this is fundamental to the spirit of the Internet as well. Equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance of this global resource.”
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/01/10/icanns-fadi-chehade-says-we-have-18-...
On might have thought that statements like this and related moves, along with the Montevideo declaration language on globalization, would lead certain CS people to pause and reconsider a little the narrative they're spinning about the supposed strategies of imperialist forces and the false consciousness and culpability of civil society collaborationists who would like an actual multistakeholder platform to work. After all, the direction being pushed in addresses their central long-standing complaint, and the resistance to it now comes from other directions where folks are not convinced of the need or comfortable with the possible pace—another MS dialogue that needs to happen. Nevertheless, some CS folks refuse to take yes for an answer when there’s other agendas in play, so singing the same old song they’ve been stuck on since 2003 is preferred. I guess there’s a whole structure of incentives that remains powerful. This is frustrating and may help to preclude the very outcome they claim to favor, but who’s got the bandwidth to spend all day every day responding to this stuff. It’d be easier to convince creationists to consider the evidence for evolution. I’m reluctantly coming to the conclusion that nothing can be done about it so the reality-based community just needs to go forward regardless and live with the catcalls etc. As for the rest below, um, er, ok, thanks. Best Bill On Jan 12, 2014, at 8:22 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
Bill,
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 themselves.
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 innovation.
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 person.
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 armor.
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.
Cheers. jfc
*********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake@uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake@gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************
sigh. Let me ask myself. How much do I depend on IANA and ICANN to use the Internet? I don't need them for IP addresses because IPv4 is out of their control now, and I can only get IPv4. I don't need them for domain names because those are resolved via the root servers and already assigned in those servers. The regulatory framework for domains are in reality run by the domicile jurisdiction of the operator of that registry with dotted lines to domicile of where I am located. ICANN recommendations and agreements may or may not be applied locally. I don't need them for port and other addressing as I am effectively limited to port 80 due to all the firewalls and fragmentation in the networks today. I don't need them to determine whether I can get an IP or a domain or not. The IP address I get is determined by my ISP even if it goes against RIPE or IANA policy. It generally is. I can't register my own domain at ICANN because it costs $1million and I want to spend $100. I can run my own DNS and provide tunnels to use my view of my own domains... for free. So why do I need IANA or ICANN to use the Internet? I am not saying they did not have a role when having Internet connectivity meant you shared a common resolution of all network resources and I got my IPs as a user directly. But when was that last the case? Most of the stuff I do want to work on don't involve ICANN or IANA at all but impact issues such as surveillance, privacy, data sharing, application ownership, pervasive logging (meta data), advertising databases, jurisdictional assignments, port blocking, traffic filtering and so on. So why are so many people spending so much money and time on ICANN? If ICANN could establish - a direct IP allocation service to me the user and guarantee routability. - a direct domain registration service to me as a user (yes I am talking so called top level naming here) - require networks to keep Ports open. i.e., no CGN.:-) - ..... and so on. Well that might be different. just asking Christian William Drake wrote:
jfc
If you’re going to cross-post things said on one list to another with a different audience and discussion going on, it would be better form to not cherry pick what you're quoting. For context, the comment below was in reply to Fadi’s statement in the interview,
"The world is seeking and growing ever more anxious to see an independent, globally-accountable ICANN where no one government, no one organization, no one individual has oversight or rights higher than the others,” Chehade says. “I believe this is fundamental to the spirit of the Internet as well. Equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance of this global resource.”
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/01/10/icanns-fadi-chehade-says-we-have-18-...
On might have thought that statements like this and related moves, along with the Montevideo declaration language on globalization, would lead certain CS people to pause and reconsider a little the narrative they're spinning about the supposed strategies of imperialist forces and the false consciousness and culpability of civil society collaborationists who would like an actual multistakeholder platform to work. After all, the direction being pushed in addresses their central long-standing complaint, and the resistance to it now comes from other directions where folks are not convinced of the need or comfortable with the possible pace—another MS dialogue that needs to happen. Nevertheless, some CS folks refuse to take yes for an answer when there’s other agendas in play, so singing the same old song they’ve been stuck on since 2003 is preferred. I guess there’s a whole structure of incentives that remains powerful. This is frustrating and may help to preclude the very outcome they claim to favor, but who’s got the bandwidth to spend all day every day responding to this stuff. It’d be easier to convince creationists to consider the evidence for evolution. I’m reluctantly coming to the conclusion that nothing can be done about it so the reality-based community just needs to go forward regardless and live with the catcalls etc.
As for the rest below, um, er, ok, thanks.
Best
Bill
On Jan 12, 2014, at 8:22 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
Bill,
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 themselves.
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 innovation.
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 person.
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 armor. 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.
Cheers. jfc
*********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake@uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake@gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
At 12:02 13/01/2014, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
So why are so many people spending so much money and time on ICANN?
No one is actually spending time on ICANN. ICANN is making us waste time for 15 years for only one single thing: they want to be a monopolistic blahblahblah-tax collector in a subsidiary world. For that they objectively network with tax-evaders to support them IRT the other tax collectors. The problem they face is that - as you documents it - ICANN is of absolute no use to tax payers, but of some use to tax evaders, due to minor errors by tax evader sponsored standardizers and to fellow RIRs if IPv6 is maintained in its "a la" IPv4 chaos and LISP is not deployed. Up to now these errors were considered as mistakes that could hamper the internet instead of making it work better. Now they are considered as paradigmatic advantages for the internet to sell better (the RFC 6852 "huge bounty" tax evaders cooperation being coordinated by ICANN as being the sole unique internet body with a banking account). Sao Paulo was initially discussed as a tax evader sponsored techies and tax collectors meeting. ICANN has managed for it to actually be between them as the world's blahblahblah-tax collector and other tax collectors. In both cases tax payers are kept out of the loop. They are now to decide if, in a tax payer centered society they bother so much about tax evaders and blahblahblah-tax collectors, and wants to stay bogged down in their unique governance (the Internet BUG to be fixed or not?). jfc
JFC, If "No one is actually spending time on ICANN", how can it be that "ICANN is making us waste time for 15 years"? R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di JFC Morfin Inviato: lunedì 13 gennaio 2014 13:14 A: Christian de Larrinaga; At-Large Worldwide Cc: 1Net List Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance
At 12:02 13/01/2014, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
So why are so many people spending so much money and time on ICANN?
No one is actually spending time on ICANN.
ICANN is making us waste time for 15 years for only one single thing: they want to be a monopolistic blahblahblah-tax collector in a subsidiary world. For that they objectively network with tax-evaders to support them IRT the other tax collectors. The problem they face is that - as you documents it - ICANN is of absolute no use to tax payers, but of some use to tax evaders, due to minor errors by tax evader sponsored standardizers and to fellow RIRs if IPv6 is maintained in its "a la" IPv4 chaos and LISP is not deployed.
Up to now these errors were considered as mistakes that could hamper the internet instead of making it work better. Now they are considered as paradigmatic advantages for the internet to sell better (the RFC 6852 "huge bounty" tax evaders cooperation being coordinated by ICANN as being the sole unique internet body with a banking account).
Sao Paulo was initially discussed as a tax evader sponsored techies and tax collectors meeting. ICANN has managed for it to actually be between them as the world's blahblahblah-tax collector and other tax collectors.
In both cases tax payers are kept out of the loop. They are now to decide if, in a tax payer centered society they bother so much about tax evaders and blahblahblah-tax collectors, and wants to stay bogged down in their unique governance (the Internet BUG to be fixed or not?).
jfc
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Ever considered writing for the Economist?
From my personal perspective. As an individual Internet user I can't reclaim ICANN expenses so every £1000 spent actually costs c.£1400 in pre tax revenue. Those who turn up for business of course can reclaim if they make a profit with corporate taxes at c.10% this means they save around £100 in tax and keep the £1400 of pre tax personal income for themselves as well.
This might give some clue as to why ICANN drove so fast to be a business orientated organisation. Christian JFC Morfin wrote:
At 12:02 13/01/2014, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
So why are so many people spending so much money and time on ICANN?
No one is actually spending time on ICANN.
ICANN is making us waste time for 15 years for only one single thing: they want to be a monopolistic blahblahblah-tax collector in a subsidiary world. For that they objectively network with tax-evaders to support them IRT the other tax collectors. The problem they face is that - as you documents it - ICANN is of absolute no use to tax payers, but of some use to tax evaders, due to minor errors by tax evader sponsored standardizers and to fellow RIRs if IPv6 is maintained in its "a la" IPv4 chaos and LISP is not deployed.
Up to now these errors were considered as mistakes that could hamper the internet instead of making it work better. Now they are considered as paradigmatic advantages for the internet to sell better (the RFC 6852 "huge bounty" tax evaders cooperation being coordinated by ICANN as being the sole unique internet body with a banking account).
Sao Paulo was initially discussed as a tax evader sponsored techies and tax collectors meeting. ICANN has managed for it to actually be between them as the world's blahblahblah-tax collector and other tax collectors.
In both cases tax payers are kept out of the loop. They are now to decide if, in a tax payer centered society they bother so much about tax evaders and blahblahblah-tax collectors, and wants to stay bogged down in their unique governance (the Internet BUG to be fixed or not?).
jfc
Hi Bill, On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:36 AM, William Drake <wjdrake@gmail.com> wrote:
jfc
If you’re going to cross-post things said on one list to another with a different audience and discussion going on, it would be better form to not cherry pick what you're quoting. For context, the comment below was in reply to Fadi’s statement in the interview,
"The world is seeking and growing ever more anxious to see an independent, globally-accountable ICANN where no one government, no one organization, no one individual has oversight or rights higher than the others,” Chehade says. “I believe this is fundamental to the spirit of the Internet as well. Equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance of this global resource.”
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/01/10/icanns-fadi-chehade-says-we-have-18-...
On might have thought that statements like this and related moves, along with the Montevideo declaration language on globalization, would lead certain CS people to pause and reconsider a little the narrative they're spinning about the supposed strategies of imperialist forces and the false consciousness and culpability of civil society collaborationists who would like an actual multistakeholder platform to work. After all, the direction being pushed in addresses their central long-standing complaint, and the resistance to it now comes from other directions where folks are not convinced of the need or comfortable with the possible pace—another MS dialogue that needs to happen. Nevertheless, some CS folks refuse to take yes for an answer when there’s other agendas in play, so singing the same old song they’ve been stuck on since 2003 is preferred. I guess there’s a whole structure of incentives that remains powerful. This is frustrating and may help to preclude the very outcome they claim to favor, but who’s got the bandwidth to spend all day every day responding to this stuff. It’d be easier to convince creationists to consider the evidence for evolution. I’m reluctantly coming to the conclusion that nothing can be done about it so the reality-based community just needs to go forward regardless and live with the catcalls etc.
Can I cross post this to other CS lists? ;-) -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
participants (5)
-
Christian de Larrinaga -
JFC Morfin -
McTim -
Roberto Gaetano -
William Drake