<html>
<body>
At 23:56 24/10/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">A long as Icann behaves as just
a stakeholder among stakeholders in the summit's preparatory process,
there will be no rupture.</blockquote><br>
Carlos,<br><br>
This is impossible for the simple reason that ICANN was created to be a
market monopoly in order to "foster competition" (By-Laws).
Competition can only be among peers. Either ICANN is one among other
competing root administrators or it organizes competition among its own
"dominoes" (registrars, and now vanity registries). The
situation is the same with IANA regarding IPv6 addresses and RFCs. What
the Technical Coalition Initiative is about is to transfer a challenged
USG historical de facto monopoly (loss of trust) to a consolidated
multi-stakeholder (ICANN/ISOC/IETF/IAB/W3C/IEEE/RIRs/Govs) market
monopoly. The acceptable alibi is to protect stability back to the world
digital ecosystem economy after the e-Snowden effect.<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>The users point of view<br><br>
</u></b>The first question for the users is to know if they accept this
new status-quo, and whether or not it is a new version of the same
statUS-quo (with the USG being more influential or less) or a better or
worse version of it. The second question is to know who their allies are
and what their capacities of influence are.<br><br>
In the case of the CS, the users have discovered that the capacity to
help is mainly in T&L (coming from where?) in order to be informed of
the Govs and Business groups astroturfing and of parts of the
multilateral oppositions. They hoped that CS could help in bringing a
civic alliance with doers (technical influence, technical development,
political deterrence, economical gathering, ethitechnic analysis in real
societal life context, architectonical catalysis): they see that this not
really the case.<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>The CS rupture<br><br>
</u></b>This may lead to a rupture of the CS with the ongoing debate
itself. This debate is:<br>
- <u>not</u> immediately on the legal usage (Digital Human Rights, i.e.
the HR in a general digital environment),<br>
- but <u>first</u> and currently on the capacity of human use of the
digital environment, i.e. the Humans' Digital Right, in the way to use a
specific technology).<br><br>
ICANN per se is a violation of the human users' digital rigth to the
benefit of naming industry stakeholder. As a human user, the name I use
are not an industrial token I must buy, but a semantic meaning everyone
can freely use. In a second step, that use is to be supported by a naming
server I am to pay the service. The difference is that I own my names and
URIs. I only pay to use them, the way I want. To to keep an hold on them.
This also means that other names related value added services can freely
and innovatively develop that are not dependent from ICANN.<br><br>
Question: I understand that CS defends Digital Human Rights. Does it also
defend the Humans' digital rights in the Internet technology? In other
technologies?<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>The users' context<br><br>
</u></b>As a user, we are involved in: <br>
- a <u>digisphere</u>: the whole set of digitally based/related issues,
like the biosphere is related to the living <br>
- where the <u>whole digital ecosystem</u> (WDE): everything that
interrelates, eats and grows digitally<br>
- where <u>every stakeholders</u> (people having interests and often
capacity in modifying the systems)<br>
- can use a intelligently designed intelligent <u>multi-technology
cyberspace</u>. <br><br>
Nothing more, at the present stage, but nothing less.<br><br>
<br>
In a nutshell, I am dissatisfied with the present situation and I
identify ICANN as the cause of my dissatisfaction: not the institution
itself, but the architectonical violation that permits it. This means
that I cannot trust ICANN if it behaves like a stakeholder it is
not.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
</body>
</html>