[discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance

[Louis Pouzin (well)]

Even though Parminder won't have the resources to block the US bully, I
support his obstination to reveal the cunning ICANN strategy, or
opportunism, for grabbing control of the São Paulo show.

ICANN is an essential cog in the US gov mass surveillance operation. It is
supposedly responsible of internet security. It never informed users of
NSA's spying instrumentation of internet. Thus, it is untrustworthy by
design, and will remain so, whatever gimmicks it resorts to for revamping
its face.

The US gov objective is to make the Brazil meeting a celebration of the
statUS quo. Strongly worded speeches devoid of substance will fill the
program. Non conformists will not be slated. We will hear wishes galore.
Wishes are fairy tales, they only bind those who believe them.

If CS wants to be heard, it has to run its own meeting.

Louis




On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:32 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Sunday 12 January 2014 09:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>>  from the announcement.
>>>
>>> "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net."
>>>
>>> So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and
>>> it is up to its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most
>>>
>> Parminder, as I read this I wonder where you have been for the last three
>> months. The political complexion of the Brazil meeting has been evident
>> since October. All doubts were cleared up by mid-November, with the initial
>> announcements coming from Brazil. In mid-November the IGP blog wrote:
>>
>
> I remember reading it, and also realizing that you had mistaken an
> announcement made by Adiel by on this list on nov 18 to be an official
> announcement by the Brazilians. Adiel announced that the non gov members on
> various organsing committees will be '1Net representatives' who will be
> selected by the 1Net coordination committee.
>
> The Nov 26th official announcement of the 'Brazil meeting' by the
> Brazilians made no mention of 1NEt at all.  It is evident that what Adiel
> wrote about may be what 1Net wanted but not at all what Brazilians agreed
> to bestow upon it. ON 27th Nov Carlos confirmed through an email to 2 open
> CS lists that 1Net was not to be any kind of single conduit or anything....
>
> BTW, I had very poor and intermittent connectivity from late nov to end
> dec and so yes, I missed a lot of action...
>
> But evidently it was only in the LOG meeting report of 20th Dec that
> 1Net's gate-keeping role appears for the first time in official records. I
> dont know what happened between end Nov and end Dec, but the above are
> publicly known facts...
>
> I have limited resources to keep following this high politik in all its
> complications.... But I think civil society should be doing much better
> than it is doing. That is the point I have been trying to make in the last
> 2 days or so.
>
>
>
>> "The [organizational] structures [announced by CGI] show clearly how the
>> meeting is a negotiated compromise between the Internet technical
>> organizations and Brazil’s government.
>>
>
> I agree, it is . Especially now, since the 20th meeting. Although I am not
> sure we can say it is the 'tech community'. I think it is largely ICANN.
>
>    Both sides get to populate half of the four steering committees
>> proposed. The ICANN/Internet
>>
>
> Oh! ICANN as Internet! What fetishism . You werent like this, Milton ;)
>
>  side takes care of representation of nongovernmental stakeholders
>> (business, civil society, academia and NGOs).
>>
>
> We agree on this. That looks like is the deal. And I am fully opposed to
> it... Just want those in civil society who still do not think, or feign
> ignorance, that this the deal, to know, now with Milton's confirmation -
> that this indeed is the deal.   That ICANN 'takes care' of the non gov
> representation at the Brazil meeting... And let they make public  their
> views on this deal.... I have asked for an IGC membership voting whether
> they support this deal,. Milton, are you ready for such a vote?
>
>
>
>  The Brazilian side emphasizes representation of states."
>>
>> Since the status of the Brazil meeting as a bridge between the technical
>> governance organizations led by ICANN and national-states led by Brazil has
>> has been obvious almost from the beginning of the process,
>>
>
> No, that is not how I read Brazil meeting. And I know that is not how most
> in civil society read it. Brazil meeting arose from some new damning proof
> of already know unacceptable level of US domination and control over the
> global Internet . Brazilian officials repeatedly said in Bali that the
> proposed meeting goes much much beyond ICANN/ I* issues...
>
>
> parminder
>
>
>    I wonder what you actually expect to accomplish by a) pretending that
>> this is a big surprise and b) beating this list and the 1net people over
>> the head with what all of us already know.
>>
>
>
>
>> If we're going to have a legitimating and broadly inclusive meeting in
>> April, someone had to kick it off, someone had to take responsibility for
>> organizing it. Efforts have been made by both the Brazil side and the 1net
>> side to be as open and inclusive as possible, though I will admit (and
>> again, was 2 months ahead of you in noticing this) that the early stages of
>> 1net were clumsy and needlessly untransparent.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>  This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at
>>> Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going
>>> through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting.
>>>
>> Nice try. But for CS, academia and PS as a whole it is actually better to
>> have a single, known, well-observed channel run by a reasonably neutral
>> entity than to have a proliferation of unaccountable back channels.
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140113/831c067d/attachment.html>