Re: [iucg] [discuss] Conference: ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to Sao Paulo, and Beyond, Singapore 21 March 2014

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

>I do realize that some of the "new" terminology refers to existing 
>Internet concepts (only more generalized) but believe in the end 
>that it may be inhibiting ability of folks to understand the 
>specific recommendations that the IUCG are making when it comes to 
>ICANN, IANA functions, etc.
>
>It might significantly improve understanding of those on the 1net 
>discuss list if the IUCG community could use existing ICANN and 
>Internet governance terminology for its input on the list.  If this 
>isn't possible, feel free to disregard, but presently the lack of 
>specific suggestions using common vernacular may be inhibiting 
>actual communication of ideas.

Dear John,

you certainly realize then that most of the Internet Governance first 
level difficulties come from the appropriation of the general 
Internet concepts by ICANN reduced vernaculars . This is the way they 
have made believe they could have a monopoly on the namespace and its 
Governance. Freeing the governance from this pseudo monopoly 
penomenon (i.e. what people perceive) is simple: it only consists in 
using Internet general terms instead of those ICANN created for its 
limited scope. For example ICANN is the INTERNIC, i.e. the NIC of the 
Internet VGN. Told in using this Doug Engelbart/Jon Postel's term, it 
makes evident to everyone that it cannot be an internet governance 
monopoly. The same as FACEBOOK is the NIC of their own social virtual 
global network. And ORSN is another NIC for the Internet VGN. And 
INTLNET was the historical global NIC.

If you want to address the Internet Governance issue, you need to use 
IG terms. If you only want to discuss ICANN you can use ICANN words. 
The question in Sao Paulo, IGF and "beyond" is: do Govs and Telcos 
want to discuss ICANN or the internet or more (the whole digital 
system, the digisphere).

This is what our lawyers demand: not to use jargons. We misunderstand 
each other because some use general terminology and other local ones 
(ex. ICANN, or postal, or Twitter, etc. terminologies). A database is 
a database. A registry is a database where one does not delete 
information, just add new qualified ones. A directory such as the 
Whois is a directory, like the telephone or the postal directories.

The internet governance has specifics, but is not basically different 
from the road governance.

Cheers!
jfc