[governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?

[Fouad Bajwa]

My question then is, signing the declaration is the output of the Montevideo, a process that's  is not itself realized equivalent to an IGF, then how is all this even legitimate. Remember the legitimate eG8 summit and passing all IG related discussions to its appropriate forum, the IGF which remains a weak and yet evolving multi-topic discussion and non-binding policy discourse space?

 The discussion on ICANN and its internationalization is happening outside the USG and ICANN itself. There is no USG call to world governments on its own nor at the UN level that may be leading a multilateral treaty for the internationalization of ICANN. ITUs WCIT drop scene is somehow forgotten, the WGEC has somehow become the well of youth where something that has not happened since WSIS shall suddenly take its magical shape.

We seem to go in circles and always are where we started. It's called not having a single centre of gravity and everyone in the IG solar system is rotation in their own orbits not being able to come in a single path to create a catastrophic apocalypse of policy innovation hoping the universal forces of multilateralism will pick up multistakeholderism and pass on the powers of universal governance to the moons and space particles that can rotate and collide with others inane direction. This is called IG Star Wars. The federation is on it's own and starship ICANN does not exist under the federation, the warlords of the planet domain name and/or dns industry are the power that the federation will never be able to break.

Our spaceship to the federation headquarters hasn't taken off yet, our pilot and co-pilot have never agreed on a flight path because the co is a technical guy and the pilot used to be a federation employee.

Best Regards
Fouad Bajwa

Sent from my mobile device

On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:04 AM, Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic.net> wrote:

> 
> El 08/10/2013, a las 13:43, parminder escribió:
> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 07:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>> snip. 
>>> 
>>> The clear, uniform call by these organizations for globalization of ICANN and IANA 
>>> a would call a truly substantial development.
>> 
>> Can you please point to where such a proposal/ call exists... Is there agreement on making ICANN an international organisation incorporated under international law and not US law, and free from all kinds of US jurisdiction, and in a host country agreement with the US government and so on.... That is what globalisation or internationalisation means..... I happy to support any such proposal from the technical community, and this can be basis of some real change. 
>> 
> 
> I can respond from LACNIC. 
> My answer is Yes. We support that ICANN become an international organization incorporated under a convenient jurisdiction. 
> In that spirit we signed this historical declaration. 
> 
> 
> Raúl 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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