[discuss] [] The future of 1net

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Apr 28 13:19:24 UTC 2014

OK, I may have missed the memo...
On 4/28/2014 9:03 AM, FSP4NET wrote:
> 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.
When was the above declared?  This list was never constrained to Net 
Mundial Topics alone and to my knowledge you are the only one(s) making 
a TPP linkage. (if you are going to imply "occidental conspiracy" you 
should probably switch to TTIP not TPP...)
> 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.
While I am fine to have you provide your/your group's opinions of what 
you feel Net Mundial was or wasn't, it would be nice if you didn't 
create a representative capacity absent someone actually making you 
their representatives.
> 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.
The list has been respectful of a fairly broad range of opinion so far, 
some would say so broad as to have no focus.
> 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.
This list has not been limited to ICANN's scope, although it has found 
the need to answer the specific questions/conditions posed related to 
transition (we found the need as opposed to the ability :-)... ) while 
arguing for work beyond the scope defined by ICANN
> 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 
Seems that the BlahBlahBlah that is of no interest to you is the way 
that differing groups discuss and sometimes come to consensus?
> 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.
What seems to be clear is that there is only room for one vision and one 
topic.  Not sure that this is a beneficial shared objective or 
functional operational method for this list, but then I only speak for 
myself.  Let's see how others on the list feel.


> We hope this is clear enough.
> Regards
> Fail-secure plan for a neutral internet dynamic coalition

More information about the discuss mailing list