[discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
Mon Jan 27 22:17:10 UTC 2014
As written in my email to MM (maybe he will come back to me to talk baguette and béret)
- Asymmetric is most appropriate indeed!! Thanks for the compliment. 12 governments are not all governments. Civil society? Political parties? Media? Users? Defense specialists? The NSA and other gentle surveillance tribes? You really want to get all stakeholders, so let bring these guys, they are part of the debate.
- The objective of my post is not to present an alternative to the currents system but to denounce the way things are handled by the I* and the US camp i.e; the current system. From my understanding, there are a couple of strong alternatives in the making. They will not be established by ICANN et consorts. Maybe I will join and support them. The lists will learn more soon enough.
The thoughtful evolution Chehadé is thinking of is, as he put himself, in "the US advantage". the threat to US business of a fragmented Internet is now the new argument to keep alternative at bay. To oppose bluntly multistakeholderism to multilateralism is a joke. To oppose ONE Internet to a fragmented Internet is another joke.
- I don't know anything as fluffy as 'Equal Footing'. I confirm this.
- I don't see the MS ever able to achieve a system with legitimacy delivering justice, and equity to all citizens equally. The invisible hand is taking care of where to put broadband, and where to have special traffic jam, and where to not be net neutral. Do you need me to quote Chehadé on his last remarks at MIT about what ultimately means MS to the participants??? A simple access and right to listen to the debate, with some in the audience being paid by the I* to applause when the sign 'Applause' is on.
- The Multistakeholder model you are throwing at people over the last ten years has produced nothing new in the IG field. To the contrary, it has pushed the IGF on the verge of implosion, - these last days, the IGF seems to be declared knock-down for good, if we listen to Avri, Janet and others - leaving the road open to another fluffy box the 1net. So Historians and journalists like me can only observe that any alternative has so far been successfully rejected.
- The Montevideo statement is made by the I*. Does that give to this statement any international value? Or any additional legitimacy? Or any sense of true Democratic change? (answers are all the way: no). SO the reality of that statement is close to nothing. Only was it made because of the international pressure that followed the NSA scandal. If it was not that scandal, the I* would have kept their peaceful coordinating meetings to a level of smart secrecy. "No, no it was public, but not publicized."
- Coming now to the equal participation (do you mean "equal footing" or "fair nomination process", or "fair 1net noncom show") you tend to ignore that the reality of all that ICANN/Brazil process is fully biased, tainted with distrust and totally illegitimate - I know this is no much of your concern so far. You have been following the quarrels on the lists for the last two months. These quarrels are the product of the way things are orchestrated. Not of the people who would sincerely try to figure out a new IG. Are you sincere or naive when you ask me: how increasing the dialog on equal participation on Internet governance can be re-interpreted as an attempt "to preserve the US oversight.
Finally John, between you and me, why don't you react to Pisanty's horrific statements in an ISOC side event at ICANN48? Is that anything acceptable to you?????
I do respect people of your caliber. But I cannot disagree more with the way you are conducting and handling the necessary changes in IG.
PS: I am now waiting for the trolls, and other good guys to come… Que casino!
Le 27 janv. 2014 à 22:29, John Curran a écrit :
> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I do blame the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a minus-zero level, and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a narrative that is now fully out of scope and concern.
>> Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it.
>> But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST. Therefore, I have no other choice than to denounce the multistakeholder fluff and its empty ideas.
>> That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with what you characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many friends in the US, honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only regret the way Internet Governance and its asymmetric situation have driven you guys out of your mind.
>> The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of Multistakeholderism
> JC -
> Interesting remarks (and blog post); one must admire your audacity in attempting to stick the label
> "asymmetric" onto a position which specifically calls for "all stakeholders, including all governments,
> participate on an equal footing." (perhaps your new "EQUAL IS ASYMMETRIC" slogan is presuming
> availability of a Ministry of Truth for promotion? ;-)
> After several readings, it would appear that the essence of your argument against the MS model is
> given in these two sentences:
> "The only problem is that this MS model is a very fluffy one, only supported by a high-level narrative and argumentative rhetoric with enough money so to be constantly repeated and inflated. The MS model keeps at bay any alternative Internet Governance that could build more trust, justice and equity around the globe. ... Their holly mission is to defend and protect the current status-quo, or any thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight under a MS Internet governance and its current imbalance."
> 1) Very fluffy - keeping alternatives at bay
> 2) Defends the status-quo, or thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight... and its current imbalance"
> Regarding the first point, Milton has invited you to provide some specific alternatives for reform..
> will any be forthcoming? It's not very difficult to keep a non-existent alternative at bay, but that fault
> lies not with the existence of the Multistakeholder model...
> Regarding the second point, it completely discounts the reality that the Montevideo Statement has
> helped open up the dialogue about moving away from the present situation with a unique USG
> oversight role; this is the expected result of the call for equal footing for all participants (noted above).
> Perhaps you can explain how increasing the dialog on equal participation on Internet governance can
> be re-interpreted as an attempt "to preserve the US oversight"?
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
> 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