[discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation
Shatan, Gregory S.
GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Wed Jan 8 23:36:23 UTC 2014
Your point is not convenient for M. Nothias’s point/worldview – that the I* organizations are interlinked puppets of the US Government. Therefore, he will never get your point.
(Opinions my own)
Gregory S. Shatan
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
gshatan at reedsmith.com
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:39 PM
To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
Cc: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Hartmut Glaser
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation
On Jan 8, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net<mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
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<mailto: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.
We agree that there was public information about the meetings, but not a high-level of
public awareness of these meetings before the Montevideo Statement.
As CEO of ARIN, I have lots of meetings with other organizations; this is generally to
coordinate aspects of various activities that have mutual involvement. The fact that
I meet with leaders from ICANN, or ISOC, or the IAB is quite routine, as there is quite
a bit of routine inter-organizational coordination required in maintenance of the IANA
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.
You keep missing the point that the I* meetings between the various leaders
are a _coordination meeting_; there is no applicable governance over the involved
organizations. Each of the Internet organizations have their own decision making
processes and community of interest. For example, in the case of ARIN, the
thinking about what ARIN's position in such matters was done long before the
I* meeting (as a result of discussions with ARIN community), and is reflected on our
web site <https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/arin.html> and in our past
statements on these matters. As the discussion and Montevideo Statement had
a high-level of overlap with ARIN's existing positions, I had the ARIN Board confirm
our agreement with the position and then signed the statement.
The meetings can't "make a decision" on behalf of anybody, at best they can find
existing commonality of views and positions among the parties.
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.
I believe it emerged as short-hand for referencing a set of organizations that
predominantly begin with the letter "I" [ISOC, ICANN, IAB, IANA, etc.], with
"*" being used in typical pattern matching context.
President and CEO
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss