[discuss] Br official site launched

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Mon Feb 3 08:21:05 UTC 2014

Milton, isn't Jeremy a member of 1Net steering committee and don't you
think he would understand the reasons behind 1net and his role perhaps more
than you?
Have you noticed any difference in 1net traffic recently(especially since
1net role in br became officially clear), does that indicate anything to
Some of us (like me) signed up to 1net with plenty of ink but have learnt
to utilise my ink better lately ;)

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 2 Feb 2014 21:12, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140203/7b403f44/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list