[discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation

Thu Jan 9 11:26:10 UTC 2014

On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:52 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

> At 03:46 09/01/2014, John Curran wrote:
>> You are conflating what are otherwise distinct events - for example, ARIN is not
>> a signatory to OpenStand; it is orthogonal (not a basis or precondition) of the
>> Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation.
> 
> John .....
> please let us know who is not endorsing the ISOC OpenStand among the "Lynn and the 11 CEOs"?

ARIN did not endorse OpenStand, as ARIN does not conduct standards
development and hence it was indeterminate regarding its application
to our mission (although quite a few of the principles therein are 
supported by ARIN in our number resource policy development)

> Please do not play with the words. There are five signatorees, then the endorsers and the supporters.

No intention of playing with words; in fact, I'd appreciate some more
precision in their use.  ARIN is not a signatory, endorsor or supporter.

> The ARIN's position in itself is of no particular importance.

Interesting.  You earlier implied that the Montevideo Statement and 
OpenStand were common steps in more stringent coalition formulation,
but now indicate that the actual participants in each step are of 
no importance?  

I believe that I'll apply Occam's razor and go with the simpler theory
that the participants in each initiative are doing so because they 
support that particular initiatives purpose and goals.

> What is discussed here is the ISOC/ICANN strategy IRT the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77 position over the mutual control of the consolidation of the Internet technology.

If there is a "ISOC/ICANN strategy ... over the mutual control of the 
consolidation of the Internet technology", it would make for informative
reading - could you provide a pointer to this?

I do know that both ICANN and ISOC support an Internet which is "built and 
governed in the public interest through unique mechanisms for global multi-
stakeholder Internet cooperation", but that's quite a different goal and I
don't need any reference for it - it's contained in the Montevideo Statement 
on the Future of Internet Cooperation.

> May I remind you that:
> 
> - "ISOC is a non-profit organization founded in 1992 to provide *leadership* in Internet-related standards, education, and policy. It is dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world."

You can remind me, but I'm quite aware of ISOC and its founding (Jon was
member #1 of the Internet Society, my membership number was in the first 
hundred)

> - WCIT has shown that the disagreement is between the notions of "leadership" (ISOC lead) and "MS-ship" (people centered).

Is that what you believe WCIT has shown?  I was there as well, and I would 
strongly disagree with not only your conclusion, but your framing on issue
in that matter.  If you had said "disagreement in notions of the relative
merit of multilateral vs multistakeholder", then we might find common ground.

> Sao Paulo should help clarfying it as a societal and global evolution of which the framework is to be defined.

At this time the Sao Paulo outcomes are unknowable.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN