[discuss] [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation
Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
Wed Jan 8 20:26:10 UTC 2014
Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:45, John Curran a écrit :
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny.
> You claimed "the existence of these meetings has now become a public information"... If you
> mean that that they now are more visible, then we're in agreement (and quite expected given
> the Montevideo Statement)
We agree on this
> However, implying that there was no public information available previously and that the very
> existence of these meetings was unavailable to the public is a specious claim.
What Lynn Saint Amour said is that these meetings were not publicized on purpose. A rather odd strategy of communication in a world that claims transparency against all behind-the-doors meetings by others. The point to know if there was a public information available or not is not really the point. The point is the 'intention'. The will behind a situation. This is what is so important in LSA statement.
On the contrary, implying that there was a public information available, and that the very existence of these meetings was known from the public is a specious disclaim.
>> Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing.
> Not anything close to a "governing board", just the leaders of the existing organizations getting
> together to coordinate actions between their organizations (and their certainly with no imprimatur
> of any country)
Again, such regular meetings can be named whatever one wishes to, the coordination done during these meetings is not about the size of the fonts on your respective websites. When discussing which strategy is to defined in reaction to the WCIT or NSA trust IG crisis (part of the asymmetric situation we are all dealing with), and then coming up with a publicized or not publicized idea such as the 1net, is exactly what a governing body is about: think and make decision in order to act upon events and people. In the open or in the hidden. At this stage we have no information if other 'ideas' had emerged from these meetings. Maybe yes, maybe no.
By the way, I find the I-stars naming really cool. I prefer it to the G20 naming. I hope you had a good drink over this one. The Internet Stars!! No offense John.
The Global Project
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss