[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Feb 24 16:08:46 UTC 2014

At 15:42 24/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
>   The above sentence _might_ have made sense if you had said 'to 
> involve the GAC
>   in the Coalition (1net) preparation" (since that appears to be 
> the purpose of
>   the Internet Coordination resolution), but:

Dear John,
will you bear with me that people from the BoD may be clever people, 
having plans and not publicly disclosing them without tactic or 
strategic considerations.

>1) that was not necessary since the resolution was directing the CEO 
>to work with other organizations to assess if even having some form 
>of coalition made sense, and

Somebody intelligent like the CEO understands that it means: under 
which terms does it would make sense. Othewise why to waste time on 
the matter, and more over publish it.

>2) the concept of Sao Paulo almost certainly did not exist at the 
>time, since if it had, it would have been discussed two weeks later 
>and been part of the Montevideo Statement.

This would have probably a way to kill it. This would not have been 
an ICANN led meeting through /1net but an ISOC I*coalition one which 
would not have interested Dilma Rousseff. Also, just remember that 
ICANN is in good position in Brazil: 18 "root-servers". Carlos and 
his people seem to make a good work for ICANN.

>(in any case, the NetMundial <hnetmundial.br> has a quite direct 
>government engagement process, including a "Council of Governmental 
>Advisors" which

... is not the GAC.  It is a new GAC as wanted by ICANN together with 
one of the WCIT anti-US positions leader. It means that either ICANN 
switched sides or is a go-between.


More information about the discuss mailing list