Re: [ga] ALAC Statement on WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Actions

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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--