Re: [ga] ALAC Statement on WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Actions
Hugh and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,
The "Masses" as you seem to wish to equate inaccurately with
Stakeholders/users have in no way been complacent in any
substantial way that I know of. However they are by ICANN
in particular and WSIS in this instance, routinely ignored. And
to avery great extent the self defined, so called "Representatives"
as you again incorrectly associate, have earned and continue
through their own false and/or unsupported edicts have caused
and continue to cause ever increasingly messes and problems
in and on the internet.
Hugh Dierker wrote:
> I believe that this discourse and a review of the past decade of
> user involvement in the process reflect a strange but often repeated
> truth. Call them what you will - stakeholders, dotcommoners, users,
> individuals, netizens, holders, owners, members and more. We seem to
> continually get to a point where representatives of this class are
> chosen based upon well hashed out mandates, then with rather rare
> exception those representatives are cast into the sea and abyss of the
> existing hierarchy and become merely one more brick in the wall
> against representation.
> Organizations and structures exist but leadership of the masses seems
> to be illusive.
> It is possible that the masses are complacent because they are
> receiving all they need and see no need for change in this statue quo.
>
> "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 08:30 22/01/04, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > > This statement has just been released by the ALAC. Comments or
> questions
> > > are welcome.
> >
> >I'm sorry that I can't support the statement as it is not in accord
> with
> >my strongly held belief that the fundamental unit of sovreignty is
> not the
> >"private sector" but the individual human being.
>
> Amen. "private sector" is here only a way to name "stakeholders" when
> faking the civil society.
>
> I would only add that human beeings are entitled to human e-rights
> that
> should be defined first. These e-rights includes naming and teaching,
> electonic presence and surety, right to send and broadcast, right to
> receive and to not receive, right to own and to associate. This is to
> result into supporting network systems architectures and into their
> concerted adequate management.
>
> Today IAB has not been able to propose such an architecture nor ICANN
> to
> animate such a management. The result is the progressive mental
> saturation
> of the users (spam, worms) and of the governance structure (denial of
> thinking by value removed complexity).
>
> There are many diferent interests to support this strategy by the
> network
> dominance : their common target is to prevent evolutions in the proper
>
> directions. This is named status quo and is said to be stability and
> security. Statbility by lock of innovation, security for the
> stakeholders.
>
> The WSIS propositions have been worked and voted to express a wish for
>
> international equal Government authority, to protect the rights of
> their
> citizens and individual end users and obtain transparency.
>
> However this may be a devil trap.
>
> The ITU is both the solution and the danger. It is a solution for 136
> years
> for the Governments to reach their target from telex to telephone. It
> is a
> trap because today the only availble welcome structure there is the
> ITU-T.
> Precisely the home of the "stakeholders".
>
> The urgency is therefore to use the WSIS momentum to initiate an
> ITU-I.
> Where "I" stands for Inteligence, Internet and - why not - ICANN. The
> mere
> fact that ICANN is not the leading party in the http://i-sector.org
> effort
> (or other similar ones) shows that ICANN (and unfortunately its
> affiliate
> structures such the mislead, non representative yet talented ALAC) is
> not
> able today to free itself from the control of the "stakeholders".
>
> But we all know for years that mission creep is a smoke screen for
> power grab.
> I would love to work with ICANN, but ICANN does not want to protect
> me. So...
> jfc
>
>
>
> >To the extent that national governments are ordained and established
> by
> >the people those governments are worthy of far more respect as the
> voice
> >of those people than are arbitrarily defined groups of
> "stakeholders".
> >
> >Few, if any, truly democratic governments have ever dared to place as
> many
> >layers of insulation between their seats of authority and their
> citizenry
> >as ICANN has placed between itself and the community of internet
> users.
> >We should not delude outselves into a belief that the mechanisms that
>
> >ICANN has created for public participation are in any way adequate.
> >
> >(I note in passing that the the ALAC statement asserts that ICANN's
> role
> >be "limited to technical matters". Given that ICANN has engaged
> almost
> >exclusively in the regulation of business processes, the ALAC
> statement is
> >suggesting that the ICANN that is desired is nearly the opposite of
> that
> >which exists. That is an opinion with which I quite agree.)
> >
> > --karl--
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801