[discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation

John Curran jcurran at istaff.org
Mon Jan 27 23:42:20 UTC 2014

On Jan 27, 2014, at 5:17 PM, JCN Global <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> John,
> 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.

I'm sorry - what restriction to 12 governments exists in the Multistakeholder model?  
(I believe that I've been following your replies, but it would help if you could go a bit
slower for those of us who need it.)

> - 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.

You again conflate the I* leaders and the US camp... why?   If one was in favor of status-quo, 
there is no reason to encourage discussion of evolution of the US oversight role, and yet this 
is precisely what the I* leaders did via the Montevideo Statement.

> - I don't see the MS ever able to achieve a system with legitimacy delivering	 justice, and equity to all citizens equally.

Propose a better alternative and the logical reasoning behind its structure.

> - 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.

Actually, it was made for the same reason that you said made your statement:  concerns about trust. 

Apparently, when you indicate that there's an issue with trust and that means looking at the USG role, 
that is wisdom being delivered to us all.  However, when the I* leaders say the same thing, it means
"close to nothing"?  

I honestly cannot understand how you can construe the Montevideo Statement as advocacy for the 
status quo, and my inquiries are trying to figure out the logical process that supports that assertion.

> - 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. 

I actually have made no comment on the Brazil meeting (other than expressing some surprise
about 1net's role)

We are not in Brazil; we are on the 1net "governance" list discussing models for improving Internet 
governance, and to my knowledge participation on the list on completely equal footing to all.  If you
feel otherwise, I'd ask that you point this out immediately.

>  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 don't find it necessary to respond to everyone who has different views than I; I generally only engage 
enough to understand their reasoning (if I can't discern from the writing) and sometimes to point it out
if my reasoning produces a different outcome from similar facts.  In Alejandro's case, I understand his
reasoning well enough, even though I may view some things differently.

In your case, I cannot as frequently discern your reasoning nor factual basis (which is why you get to 
enjoy more of my replies...)

> 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.

I'm not "conducting" anything; I'm participating on this list just like many others in this discussion.  

With respect to the necessary changes in IG, it would be good to hear what you consider necessary 
and why...   This discussion of necessary changes in IG structures is taking place via an initiative
that exists _because_ of the Montevideo Statement and I* leaders, and likely why the allegations (of 
defense of the status quo) are somewhat humorous when posted to this particular list.


Disclaimer: My views alone.

More information about the discuss mailing list