Subject: Re: [iucg] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 12:06:30 +0200

At 11:04 04/08/2014, Richard Hill wrote:
>You are right, the term "Internet technical community" has also 
>frequently been used.  But I still don't understand why we should 
>use any term other than the one used by NTIA, which is "global 
>multi-stakeholder community".

This seems correct thinking if you want to answer the NTIA question.
This becomes anecdotal when you consider the situation created by the 
NTIA abdication. Once gone, gone its particular terminology. As usual 
this vacuous debate reflects the common lack of fundamental 
architectonic home/common work.

>Regarding people who don't have access to the Internet, they can 
>contribute through representatives that do have access, in 
>particular through civil society groups that work to exapand Internet access.

The representatives they vote and pay for are their Governments, the 
NTIA currently disregards.

I accept that the NTIA is pragmatically (but not democratically) 
right. Their position is not due to a lack of representativeness of 
the states but to an evaluation of a lack of adequate architectonical 
knowledge and thinking by ***everyone***, the USG astutely tries to 
strategically takes advantage from.

When I say everyone I include myself: I was laid off the global 
network leadership in 1986 because I only partly understood their 
trick (God forgive: I did not read the Einsenhower farewell address 
by then :-)).

The NTIA created virtuality, has lead to the mailing list irreality, 
where human rights are defended by GAFATM  employees and sponsored 
academics against the governements of the people by the people for the people.

However, there is H.R. 20: 
http://www.demos.org/publication/government-people-act, the proposed 
"The Government By the People Act". I will be myself interested in 
the I*core positions along the "The Governance By the IUsers RFC" 
they should start discussing first.

jfc

>Best,
>Richard
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: lundi, 4. aoÃ»t 2014 09:31
>To: [email-masked]; Stephen Farrell; Avri Doria; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
>
>Hi again Richard,
>On 8/4/14, 9:10 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>>Well, then different definitions are used in different forums.  The 
>>definition I've heard during the past 10 or so years is the one 
>>that Avri referred to.
>I think there's been some confusion because at times, particularly 
>in the ITU context, the term "Internet technical community" has been 
>used to refer to not just the I*s but also operators and their 
>vendors.  At least to me, that's a slightly different kettle of fish.
>>
>>Anyway, I think that the "global multi-stakeholder community" also 
>>includes people who don't at present use, or even have access to, 
>>the Internet, so that is still broader than the definition below.
>Of course if someone has does not have an email address, then one 
>will have great difficulty submitting comments.
>Eliot
>
>_______________________________________________
>ianatransition mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition