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

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 28, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Jefsey <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
>> 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.

Possibly the case, but still the choice of those who participate using
such terminology.

> 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.

Excellent - then you are already free; congratulations!

> 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).

My review of all materials to date shows no indication of desire to discuss 
beyond the "ICANN" VGN (as you refer to it) and on direct related matters of
its governance.

/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.