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

[John Curran]

On Jan 27, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

> John;
> let phrase the things differently for you to understand. Most in the world do not trust the Internet establishment anymore and this is for us a *problem*. You are part of this establishment and you tell us, "I either, but we have a solution"..

Interesting perspective...  I hadn't quite realized that the trust issues (that 
stem with pervasive surveillance) have extended to the various non-governmental
Internet institutions.

There is quite a bit of irony if that is the case, but perception is reality in 
such matters and can be tricky at times.

> 1. people are suspicious because  they do not trust you as competent enough since you people have built and manage the current situation, and you do not have implement your solution.

Could you rephrase the above?  I understand "not trusted as competent", but 
the reasoning that follows doesn't make sense to me.  Specifically, what is
"the current situation" that we built to which you refer?

> 2. but they are ready to frienrly listen to you. And you say nothing. You use multiloaded words: globalization, MSism, equal footing, a semantic arsenal  If they question you, you respond: "define your alternative" They have none: they have you and your solutions as a problem. .

Actually, we don't have any solutions... one would hope that we can collaborate 
on mutually acceptable solutions on this 1net discuss mailing list.

> Why not to start with a few information on the /1net site, explaining the meaning of the words you use.

Excellent idea; I believe that is a very good step in problem solving and hopefully can 
be done as either as general terms of reference or in individual problem statements as
they are developed.

>> We are not in Brazil; we are on the 1net "governance" list discussing models for improving Internet governance,
> 
> Frankly, this list has no other interest than to prepare Sao Paulo because it may still more negatively impact the situation. No one  is interested in the evolution of a vulnerable internet governance before one has decided of the evolution of the internet itself.

That would appear to be fundemental impasse, as your assertion would imply that 
there is no reason to work on any Internet problems via this 1net mailing list, yet 
the mailing list is specifically about working collaboratively on Internet problems. 

>> 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.
> 
> Ah ... the "equal footing" is not in governing or in designing the internet, it is on discussing them on this list!
> Now I understand the qui pro quo.

Designing the Internet?  The Internet is the result of many Internet service providers
all collaborating to provide services which together have more value than apart... I am 
uncertain what aspects of "designing the Internet" you feel should be part of Internet 
governance - if you wish to design Internet services, you should become an Internet 
service provider and/or participate in the IETF protocol development work.

/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.