[discuss] [] The future of 1net

Mon Apr 28 13:03:06 UTC 2014

At 13:44 28/04/2014, joseph alhadeff wrote:
>One thing might be to have a, or a few, collective objective(s)?

This list has been built on an ambiguity, a qui pro quo, concerning 
the status-quo. This qui pro quo was that:
- its purpose was to host a pre-determined NETmundial declaration 
preparation context
- supposed to expose an "open MS" process need consistent with the 
TPP/AFTA strategy.

As such its organizers where not prepared to sustain a true MS 
process where some of the Stakeholders would not share their vision 
and/or their trust in the to be  discusssed MS  process, and as a 
consequence in the /1NET process itself.

As a result the NETmundial declaration does not respresent 
Independent Users, Russia, China, and the Dubai majority 
stakeholders. It may be an exciting declaration for some, it remains 
an ambiguous minority declaration for others like us, moreover when 
considered in the RFC 6852, Montevideo Statement, and March 14 NTIA 
annoucement context.

So, this list is now to decide if it wants:
- to host a part of the global (or Transnational Occidental 
Corporations) MS process and be attentive to and respectful of every 
Stakeholder (inividual or group),
- or an ICANN oriented dynamic coalition exploring a particular 
vision of the Internet Governance.

This means either to be a Parliament, or a Party Congress. Both are 
necessary, but they cannot be confused. There is in addition the case 
of the IANAtransition list that focuses on this transition only in 
the ICANN framework and therefore accepts a non-neutral vision of the Internet.

As far as the FSP4.NET dynamic coalition is concerned, it splits the 
world, and therefore an "MS parliament" approach on the net 
neutrality issue. Network neutrality is for us an absolute techical, 
societal and political question of personal life and death as our 
activities, products, and development require a neutral network. We 
are not interested here in blahblahblah (of both sides), we are 
interested in working technical proof of efficient concept.

We are therefore:
1) not interested in any exchange not based upon a first demand of a 
neutral internet.
2) we respect and are ready to cooperate, at least to some extend, 
with every other position than ours that respect this pre-requisite.
3) we consider as our duty and our personal, familiy, local, 
professionnal, cultural, national, global survival to fight any 
political, diplomatic, economic, technical, etc. attempt to  consider 
any non-neutrality of the networks, and to support any inititative 
that technically explores, develops, imposes, deploys and/or protects 
network neutrality.

We hope this is clear enough.

Regards
FSP4.NET
Fail-secure plan for a neutral internet dynamic coalition  