[discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
Tue Jan 28 17:05:15 UTC 2014
Le 28 janv. 2014 à 02:58, John Curran a écrit :
> On Jan 27, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
>> 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.
If I may, it is time to realize it
> 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.
Agree. Your perception, my perception, anyone's perception...
>> 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?
IT seems so easy for you to understand the rude language of Pisanty, and more difficult to get view of others who do not share your approach, and reading of events and facts. If you have no idea of the current situation (over the last two years at least, then, what are you looking at?) I am in despair for you. Just kidding.
>> 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.
1net has no legitimacy at all (which one has it, apart from being funded by ICANN? Do you think that ICANN should have put a little bit more money into the IGF? Even Saint Amour back in December said the I* needed to give funding to the IGF - to calm it maybe?.
I would disagree with both Michel and you over the fact that there are no alternative. There are other options. At least I can see two of them. You will be informed soon enough, and the dialogue might start again, but not under a strict control and ruling by the I* and their Asymmetrics priests whether Cerf, Pisanty or any other.
But again, as I wrote in my post it is really difficult to collaborate with a group of people refusing to have common definitions, refusing to acknowledge that the game has been biased for sometime. It seems like there is no honest desire to come a neutral table for a discussion to deliver something else than what the I* and Asymmetrics are expecting. A no-concession approach in diplomacy drives no where, and ruins the last drop of trust.
>> 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.
As soon as we enter your 'game', you get your smile back! Interesting. In Michel suggestion, I do understand that he does not understand clearly what is 1net about? A problem for anyone to feel confident to enter that arena. BUt if we accept and say : "Let's go and seat on an equal footing basis to a 1net table…" then we might see how ready and open you are to find a new IG model. Haven't you the impression that we have seen enough sterile thinking from the Asymmetrics. Think of Pisanty and his radicalism. He is at war, and you understand it, right? 1net is another fluffy bizzarerie, among many others the Asymmetrics have invented to keep the imbalance in place.
>>> 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.
During the first High Level panel in London organized by ICANN, the Brazil summit was of very little concern to many participants from the feedback I have from at least two participants. CI won't give my source on this but I am very positive. Chehadé and others have only in mind the next stages of the WSIS where they see the real danger coming from (International law). And it seems, again from an observing point of view, that on a political level, this is the right way to go. Give Rousseff a little shine about her Internet Governance and plan to run data privacy in Brazil (even though a digital iron-wall seems a little help if you keep the current architecture of Internet as it is today),; and an exit to her UN speec).
>>> 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.
A bit surprise to read this. Architecture of Internet? You need help on this? Not you! Designing the Internet is clear to many, and to you as well. To keep ONE Internet has a direct impact on business and surveillance. Both are fully related to the designing of Internet. See previous emails in the lists.
Again, and again, the way you answer to these emails show (and we might sound more or less the same to you) that you are reluctant to envisage a completely different setting. Going after the middle countries - the stupid ones who didn't know what to think of Internet Governance back in Dubai, is a way of thinking that sounds a bit awkward to me, specially from someone like Chehadé. Germany, Turkey… and others would be middle countries, that could easily be pushed into a pro MS asymmetric game, well, well, that is to be seen.
You are underestimating the fact that the 'world' as Cheahadé put it, might already felt so down on your approach that if you do not accept to deeply change your thinking, you will be responsible for getting Internet a divided, fragmented, and untrusted world.
BY the way, in my first email regarding the present conversation, I spotted at least one concrete idea. It seems again, that you were not able to pick it up. Too bad you seems to be blind to alternative.
> 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