PPIGD proven - Was RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system

[Meryem Marzouki]

We rather have a tautology here: "100% of discussions on alternatives  
to ICANN are discussions about ICANN".
Meryem

Le 16 nov. 07 à 16:24, Ian Peter a écrit :

> Well, its now proven true, after being tested in many forums at Rio  
> and also
> on this list, and I can now announce that the Peter Principle of  
> Internet
> Governance Discussions has been fully tested and proven.
>
> The Peter Principle of Internet Governance Discussions states....
>
> As any discussion around Internet governance grows longer, the  
> probability
> of it drifting into a discussion about ICANN approaches one.
>
> With thanks to Godwin's law for the formulation!
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com]
> Sent: 17 November 2007 02:12
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki
> Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re:
> [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system
>
> At 15:48 11/16/2007  +0100, you wrote:
>> "let's save user's interests"?! Funny.. Second, why do you think many
>
> I can advise you reading Joi's thoughts on that:
> http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/11/12/three_years_with_icann.html
> "The other problem is that most of the people who are affected by the
> decisions, the average users, don't know or care about ICANN. Trying
> to figure out an better way to get their input has always been an
> issue, but is one that is not unique for ICANN. All of politics and
> collective action share the difficulty in getting the public to care
> about issues that affect them." And there are many like this. You
> can't force your ideas (neither can I do with mine) on the 1 billion
> Internet users, and make them care about their representation at the
> global level. People in my country don't really care about ICANN;
> they stopped caring even about the ccTLD administrator after the
> implementation of prices 6 times higher than the ones existing in
> 2000. So, why do you think the users' interests should be focused on
> domains and IP addresses? I agree - let's have a discussion, but let
> us not try to define what the discussion should be about, but discuss
> everything, equal time for everything.
>
>> governments are not happy with current situation? And there are
>
> Could you define what you mean by happiness of a government?
>
>> Who's saying this is only for the sake of the discussion, apart from
>> those who don't want this discussion opened?
>
> I don't think there are people here who don't want a discussion open.
> But I also think there are people who would like to keep the
> discussion going on for quite a while, without any results. And I can
> talk about this freely, as I was part of the small governmental
> working group, which reached to the solution just before the first
> WSIS in Geneva. I don't recall anyone else from our IG list there.
> And I know what I saw, what I heard, and what happened afterwards.
> So, when you say there are people who don't have a discussion opened,
> I am not sure who you have in mind. I know who are the ones who
> wanted the discussion.
>
> Veni
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date:  
> 15/11/2007
> 20:57
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date:  
> 15/11/2007
> 20:57
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance