[discuss] Why oversight? (was Re: Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan)

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Apr 1 13:53:28 UTC 2014

At 14:58 01/04/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>A third answer I've seen appears to be that we need a place for
>governments to supervise everything.  I think that view is
>antithetical to the multi-stakeholder approach we're supposedly using.
>If people are really opposed to that approach, they should say that.

they definitly are.

But they understand they are opposed to the NTIA MSism, familiar and 
unhappy with the ICANN MSism, more happy but without illusion with 
the IGF MS compromise, and used to the ITU MSism. MSism is a tool, we 
name "concertation" in Europe. It depends on who is at the table and 
if there are mandatory prerequisites or not. This is related to the 
NTIA "no governement" diktat: people elect and pay government to 
carry that job. You tell them to participate and that you will help: 
they do not want to be engineers, they want to be users and to get 
what they expect for the money of their taxes. This includes to be 
protected from US global interests interferences.

Let it be understood once for all: we do *not* want a policy and a 
technology designed in the interest of the US network edges 
(providers and surveillance). This was voted in Dubai. OECD countries 
officialy supported the US there. Elections throughout EU (France 
this WE, Germany being uncertain about Russia, etc.) show that the 
OECD support is weakening. We do not want neo-liberalism neither in 
policy nor in technology. The strategic reports to the US President 
and Presidentially signed non-applied strategy I quoted yesterday 
explain why it is dangerous for the US as well as for everyone.

If you want to commit suicide for Google, this is your choice. It is 
more and more obviusly not the choice of the world.

More information about the discuss mailing list