<html>
<body>
Dear John,<br>
The Government is closed, but the NTIA carried their job properly before
:-) All this is well done. Will it succeed? probably yes, right now, and
no on the long range.<br><br>
At 16:58 09/10/2013, John Curran wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> The Montevideo statement is
not by the technical community but an attempt at radical monopoly by the
statUS-quo technical bodies without consensus of their participants and
members. <br><br>
I can only speak for ARIN, but our member-elected Board approved the
statement, as <br>
it is based on positions that we have publicly taken previously and
discussed with our <br>
membership. </blockquote><br>
No doubt about it. However, that does not mean that your approving
membership is to be identified with a so-called "technical
community".<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> Sorry, John, but who pays
the piper calls the tune. The users pay. We will certainly hear you, but
please do not pull our leg with Montevideo wanting to free ICANN from the
USG. ICANN is "freely" committed to the same strategy and
interests as the USG because "this is the best for the
internet". BTW this may be partly true: the statUS-quo, that
Montevideo builds upon, needs to transition but has to make it in good
order. ICANN has shown many times it is not ready yet for such a change,
even along its own rules (cf. ICP-3). Nor the NRO (when do you plan an
ITU/NRO multistakeholder UN oversight of the world's digital addressing
plans?).<br><br>
JFC - I'd be happy to discuss your concerns, but truly can't discern what
exactly they are <br>
from the above... One point I do note is that you suggest that the
signing organizations <br>
are effectively "pulling your leg" in wanting to free ICANN
from the USG.<b></blockquote><br>
</b>I have no concerns. <br><br>
There are facts. These facts can positively add: this is negentropy; or
they cannot: this is entropy. It may happen that the entropy becomes too
high for the accumulated negentropy. Then, the whole thing collapses and
a new equilibrium emerges. This is called self-organized criticality
(SOC) and is an architectonic event, like earthquakes, avalanches, wars,
economical crisis, etc. I have observed that for the last 15 years the
various (or lack of) adopted architectonic strategies seem to lead to an
SOC situation. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The signing organizations did
call for "accelerating the globalization of ICANN and <br>
IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders,
including all <br>
governments, participate on an equal footing."
<b></b></blockquote><br>
I do not doubt they did! This is certainly a democratic violation - where
is the vote ? -, probably a logic contradiction, and certainly a lack of
proper evaluation of the situation. Everyone is entitled to error.
However, perseverare diabolicum.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I know this position to be true
with respect to ARIN, and note that during the Feb 2011 <br>
NTIA IANA NOI, we (and the other RIRs) are on record with the general
position that <br>
"no government should have a special role in managing, regulating or
supervising the IANA <br>
functions."
<<a href="http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRO-comments-to-USDoC-NoI.pdf">
http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRO-comments-to-USDoC-NoI.pdf</a>
><b></blockquote><br>
</b>As far as I am concerned, I think that, with the exception of the
Civil Society, everyone's position is roughly consistent, incorrect
enough to cause a catastrophe, but certainly roughly consistent.
<br><br>
Civil society is the problem here, because I do not see any seriously
considered attempt by its leading activists to do anything except
squawking and certainly not unite together with open source (what I call
OpenUse). I think this is absolutely normal: civil society is a new
societal concept (initiated by lawyers) when compared with government,
economy, and international relations (their current democratic form dates
from Athens). It has to be shaped by experience. It has to learn the
rough way as to what practical democracy is: subsidiarity. Open source is
not “democratic”. And all of us have to learn together what polycracy is,
i.e. democracy among multistakeholder groups in an anthropobotic
(man+machine) world. The very basis of human democratic society is not
equality but philia (how many know the word). Philia can unlimitedly
deploy through networking. <br><br>
Snowden is not a whistle-blower. He simply created a peep-hole into
polycracy. On purpose or not, it helps us tuning it.<br>
jfc<br><br>
</body>
</html>