[discuss] Clarifications on some recent Changes

Michel Gauthier mg at telepresse.com
Wed Feb 5 16:22:32 UTC 2014

At 14:55 05/02/2014, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>IMHO this is a pretty bad idea, and that it has been discussed on 
>the SC without participation from the rest of the community does not 
>make it a good idea.


if you were in charge of a national internet governance strategy 
wishing to conciliate your political position with the position of 
opponents so the WCIT disagreements do not impact the World Trade 
development through EDI, ONS, RFIDs, etc. what would you do?

You would assign a group of three people and staff to the operational 
conduct of the strategy. Trying to find a middle ground for an 
agreement among the opposing leaders (i.e. US/OECD and BRICS) through 
a pseudo-grassroots process, so no one is to change its political 
public position while everyone may agree on a technical arrangement.

1st need: a middle-man to dynamise a (2. need) grassroots middle-ground.

The middle-man is ICANN. It joinded the OpenStand ISOC bandwagon in 
Montevideo, making sure that the now allied I*technicians would 
follow (ARIN supports but remotely: they have nothing to lose).

ICANN jumped in Brazilia. The momentum of the annoucement permitted a 
"third party" (AFRINIC) creation of the grass-roots process. 650 
people from everywhere bitting the "MS" bait , plus the three men in 
the back (the membership of the mailing list is quite interesting to 
study, who is here and who is not). These six hundred people 
definitly ARE the I*intelligentia of the Internet.

Now you have to drive the process. This is not that easy: you have 
the money and politcal power, these people have the grey cell and the 
user power.

So, you have to capitalise on the image of an MS democratical 
uprising an open minded Brazil is sympathetically good for the Falls 
election). But you must keep these people under control (they start 
now about asking for a Wiki: JFC had already introduced one and 
propozed the Brazilian side to co-manage it - what they had dutyfully 
ignored): danger. MS is a bait not something to manage the IG).

Therefore, you address this nicely: they want a wiki? Well you give 
you a forum. You know that the debate will focus on how stupid this 
relationnally is, how it technically works, etc. estinguishing the danger.

By that time you also had started to institutionalize the mailing 
list. i.e. making it readable by politicians, through a report on 
this unbelievably important grassroots MS surge one MUST consider 
(with the Telcos familly- every side need their support).The report 
is on what you want them to want (the Louis XVI's register of 
grievance) and what they continue to say, through a weekly report to 
Chanceries now able to record the multiple, sometime sontradictory, 
channels they have now built because THEY think there are various 
levels in transparency. This will make the inputs brought to the 
attention of the ministerial level meeting by the "MS chosen" 
committees (during the creation brouhaha).

The problem now is just to keep the people's grey cell as far as 
possible from self criticallity, so the whole things does not 
blow-up. In particular no "HomeRoot", no "Netix", no "MS IG Wiki": 
the grassroots round is to come to an end. Begins the diplomatic 
round: the 11 other countries to sit on the "table chair". These 
people want to know who they are talking to (real persons and civil 
agents) one can trace through their forum registration 
(dic://nsa.gov) and get a passport copy. As I reported it I have been 
informed that some's e-mails where on the /1net registration black-list.

Very interesting, as you say. A very well  done job.Nearly as gwell 
as Snowdenia.

Who are the three non diclosed members of the /1net mailing list? 
Probably archives and who else.


More information about the discuss mailing list