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

[Michel Gauthier]

At 20:17 28/01/2014, John Curran wrote:
>Legitimacy for what purpose?  1net is a perfectly legitimate discussion forum;
>one suitable for working on problems and solutions, and it can be one of many
>such forums.

A discussion forum does not usually organizes ministerial level meetings.

>The value of a solution is in the merit of its arguments, not based 
>on number or
>flavor of endorsements;

Wrong. RFC 6852 what counts is the acceptation by the market.

>if you seek a forum where the solutions are evaluated
>based on political support or representation, I'd look elsewhere.

This is an anti-democratic stand?

>Actually, I would welcome common definitions... please suggest some 
>either as a baseline
>or as part of the draft problem statement that George proposed.

John, this is something difficult. However sympathetic you may be: 
you are the problem. People use it because there is no other 
possibility but they have lost trust in you (11 CEOs) and in your 
technology. I know: you have not endorsed OpenStand. There is most 
probably a good reason for that: you do not trust it either?

>>A no-concession approach in diplomacy drives no where, and ruins 
>>the last drop of trust.
>
>"Approach to diplomacy"?   This posting must have been intended for 
>some list other than
>the <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org list, as this discuss 
>list is about working on problems and solutions,
>not negotiation, posturing, or diplomacy.

John, diplomacy is to human what tuning is to machine, something 
which is absent from computers. We are no computers....

>If you believe such, then feel free not to participate and/or work 
>in another forum (and if
>you send me an invite, I might even join in that discussion if I can 
>meaningfully contribute)

This "list" has hijacked the preparation of Sao Paulo. It seems 
normal that it reflects the debate that its members wanted and will 
most probably not get there by lack of time. At least the meeting 
conclusion should reflect everyone position, on an equal footing 
basis. Is that still correct?

>If that is your desire, then go forth. I actually have no desire to 
>"push" anyone (particularly
>not countries) into any particularly direction.   I (and many others 
>on this list) _do_ want to
>try to further explore some of the current challenges in Internet governance.

What is strange enough is your lack of consideration of Internet 
technical changes that could affect what is to be governed. A 
substantial part of the informed people in the world want the IG to 
change as a consequence of a preliminary technological improvement.

What do you respond to people saying you: "we do not trust you, we do 
not trust your machines, we do not trust your proposition we do not 
understand"?

>Wonderful.  Perhaps once we have a problem statement, you would be 
>so kind as to restate
>your proposed solution/alternative and the reasoning supporting it?

I feel that (if I look at the number and the origin of the mails) the 
problem is the decrease of interest in something unable to document 
what it is, where it comes from, what it targets and to commit?

We have computers in the cloud, now we have their governance in the wind?

M G 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140129/ca404a08/attachment.html>