[discuss] Br official site launched

Sun Feb 2 22:41:23 UTC 2014

Dear Milton,

it seems that what you describe is the reality. Amateurism 
everywhere. "Things hastily started by ICANN and the RIRs, initially 
as a somewhat poorly conceived idea". Probably endorsed by a confused 
NTIA and a beheaded NSA. Probably good will ideas by people at odds 
with the logic of their structure.

I feel you support this Brazil meeting a lot: what do you expect from 
it as it is in less than three months and totally unprepared in term 
of agenda. Or should we see it as a ministerial BarCamp?

M G

At 22:11 02/02/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="_000_127fbbacc5134369a0b061b3b8d358f9EX13MBX13adsyredu_"
>
> > But since then, all the arrangements that have been made for 1net to take
> > a special role in the Brazil meeting have been made with the man behind
> > the curtain, not with the members of the 1net mailing list, nor 
> even the (then
> > inchoate) 1net steering committee.
>
>This is where your reasoning goes off the rails, Jeremy. The 1net 
>steering committee had to be constituted, didn't it?
>To call it "inchoate" is a bit disingenuous; it DIDN'T EXIST YET and 
>had to be created through the processes and agreements that were 
>established beforehand.
>I really think you need to read about the bootstrapping problem in 
>the paper I wrote with Ben. ;-)
>
> > 1net has just been a smokescreen for the technical community to deal with
> > Brazil under cover of what they can claim to be an open, multi-stakeholder
> > dialogue.
>
>Again, a lack of logic. One the one hand you want to treat 1net as 
>if it were a spontaneously generated community that demands to 
>renegotiate from scratch its relationship to the Brazil meeting, on 
>the other hand you claim that it is a puppet of the ITC. Both 
>extremes are wrong. In fact, 1net was hastily started by ICANN and 
>the RIRs, initially as a somewhat poorly conceived idea - but since 
>then I don't see a lot of top down control over the composition of 
>the 1net steering committee. Seems to me they've done what they said 
>they were going to do.
>
> > [ICANN] should have been up-front about that, rather than maintaining the
> > fallacy that the real partner of the meeting was actually 1net, a new
> > multi-stakeholder dialogue that didn't even exist or have the capacity to
> > make decisions for itself when these deals were being struck.
>
>I don't see any pretense about this.
>
> > I'm not against the Brazil meeting, and it's the meeting 
> committees that are
> > to liaise between the organisers and their constituents.  I think 
> it would be
> > a great idea for 1net to decide for itself what it should be doing
> >  rather than be told that it's a co-organiser of the Brazil 
> meeting regardless
> > of the wishes of its participants or the historical facts.
>
>Weak response. What would you have it do? You have no serious 
>agenda, which is why you're coming off as obstructionist. You seem 
>to be keen to prevent it from doing something that most people think 
>it was created to do, but you have not suggested anything serious 
>that it should be doing, except perhaps sit around and quibble about 
>what it should do.
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss