[discuss] My current understanding of scope and why

Wed Jan 8 15:58:14 UTC 2014

At 09:41 08/01/2014, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>You have to be kidding or are grossly misinformed, Brazil plans and 
>attitude towards definition of a set of principles and ...
...snip...
>... multilateral", so there is no fresh breath anywhere but a proxy 
>fight to defend the interests of specific groups and governments.

Dear Jorge,
I am afraid I do not understand you. This analyzis seems (1) 
excellent but (2) to support what you seem to oppose.

It implies that the danger:
- is not coming from the public NSAs of the world: "you do your job, 
thank you guies. You are the good boys (as long as the regime you 
serve is democratic)".
- is coming from "multistakeholderism/t status-quo".

Logically, you should consider that who ever counters the 
astroturfing of these "multistakeholders", defends the interests of 
his/her country, peace and people.

This is certainly one of the most interesting working hypothesis: the 
difficulty is not in the Govs, but in correctly assessing to which 
extent each individual Gov or pole of influence is aware, infiltered, 
able, advanced, active, in which direction IRT the lobbies and 
commercial interests trying to biaise the situation. This is the IAB 
RFC 3869 assessment.

In this case, I analyse that a counter-strategy that several seem to 
support on this list is to:
- disturb or reverse their social engineering operations (such as /1net).
- put them at technical disadvantage: their cpacity is in ubiquicity 
of the technological level they have to constrain the world. It is 
therefore strategic for them not to innovate, unless they control 
this innovation.

Are you supporting it. Or do you advocate another one, of the form 
anything which has to happen, will happen?

If one pursues this analysis, it means that Snowden is an 
anti-status-quo very efficient agent. This raises the question: who 
influences who?

MG