[discuss]  The future of 1net
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
> 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
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.
> Fail-secure plan for a neutral internet dynamic coalition
More information about the discuss