[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
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:
will you bear with me that people from the BoD may be clever people,
having plans and not publicly disclosing them without tactic or
>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
... 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