[governance] the end of Governments a we know them ?

[JFC Morfin]

I just started perusing the daily report of the ICANN.GAC discussion. 
 From the very beginning, governments (EU) plead that they were at 
the originating of the gTLD "_market_". Therefore, this meeting is 
all about a merchant set of issues and not on the common interest 
issues, including the commercial ones. I note that the UK rep gives a 
long list of those looking to GAC to represent them, ranging from 
government ministers... users... businesses.. .to consumers, etc. 
with a single interesting exception: "people".

As Suzane Sene actually put it, this is a pivotal time: ICANN's 
commercial reps are now to be governments in their respective 
capitals and, therefore, GAC is to lead ICANN.

This is not what we want, because this is obsolete in terms of 
society, politics, and technology. What is claimed as a government in 
this US presented "GAC consensus" does not match what the people of 
the world understand today as what a government is to be. We are in 
the Internet age now and no longer in the Guttemberg time. 
Governments have the same mission, but its description must use our 
present-day words, not the old words reviewed by the "great pirates" 
(Richard Buckminster Fuller) of the day to transform these 
governments back into the commercial lackeys of these "great pirates" 
(now mostly banks of the FED).

One has the feeling that they are only using the "sovereignty 
argument" now in order to impose a "commercial" or "technical" policy 
based upon "their" experts (who are they?) rather than "ICANN 
experts" (who are they?). Who cares about experts? One only has to 
observe the common "constitution", which is, as Lessig explained a 
long time ago, in the "code". Everyone can do that on a daily and 
easy basis. For example, in circumventing the "governmental experts" 
advised ICE site hijacking.

A few years ago, IAB asked governments to enter the field of IETF 
expertise in order to protect innovation and neutrality (RFC 3869). 
Governments disregarded this call. As a result, what they do not 
understand today, is that the "experts" of their limted class 1, two 
presentations, a few hundred Internet DNS suffixes, and an unsecure 
use of the DNS technology area, are technically and politically 
disqualified by the Internet architectural reality that everyone can 
and will use once explained. This explanation of the Internet 
existing architecture is what IAB, IESG, and those who understand it 
hesitate to give because this will probably lead to an international 
grassroots revolution against ICANN, and now against the obsolete 
form of government displayed in Geneva that doctorally (as Von 
Guttemberg ?) discuss the DNS instead of the kind of society that the 
people want to support in forty years.

Regarding Suzane Sene and Dee, etc. the true problem for us is to 
know if they want to gag humanity in becoming the ICANN leader and 
give ICANN a monopoly on naming (which has to extend to all the terms 
used by the 22,500 existing language entities if it is to be 
efficient), or in using the ICANN forum to affirm the global 
positions that they intend to locally impose even outside of the 
ICANN area (without a monopoly on words it has no use). In both 
cases, it is a Gaddafi strategy that the people revolution will have 
to address differently: either in ignoring or disregarding it until a 
new governmental conception has emerged for our time. Neither 
Tunisia, nor Egypt, nor Lybia, nor Iran, etc. has used a TLD, they 
used twitter naming.

jfc

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t