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

[Avri Doria]

hi,

Not to mention that business and the Intellectual property forces in ICANN already have the controlling voice.
To have governments also representing them as opposed to their citizens, it overkill.  Then again that is a main problem with governments, by and large they do what the most powerful, which these days is often the businesses who buy their elections, tell them to do.

Although to be fair, while I may not agree with Bill Dee and Suzanne Sene a lot of the time, I have never noticed them in the act of gagging anyone (neither actually nor virtually) and have always felt them to be ready for a rip roaring discussion on most any point.

a.

On 2 Mar 2011, at 08:00, JFC Morfin wrote:

> 
> 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 This is not what we want, because this is obsolete in terms of society, politics, and technology.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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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