[discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation
jcurran at istaff.org
Wed Jan 29 04:39:43 UTC 2014
On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> 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.
Agreed - my description above was with respect to "1net" and its legitimacy as
a discussion forum; I was not referring to any other role.
>> 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.
Actually, 1net should determine its own standard for determination of a good
solution, but it you if want that to be RFC 6852, then so be it:
Per RFC 6852: "...Standards that: • are chosen and defined based on technical
merit, as judged by the contributed expertise of each participant;"
(i.e. very similar to the "merit" criteria I stated above)
> 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?
For clarity, ARIN did not endorse the Open Stand platform, predominantly
because when the opportunity to participate presented itself, there was
insufficient time for consideration of this particular statement of principles
and implications by the ARIN community. Note also that "not endorsing"
does not equate to rejecting the Open Stand principles; it simply means that
they have not been brought before the ARIN community for consideration
at this time.
>> 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?
No idea; you should ask such questions to the Sao Paulo meeting organizers.
>> 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"?
I would ask for more explanation, since "we do not trust your proposition we do not understand"
doesn't really let me understand either.
>> 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?
Sorry, I was trying to bit more specific, and asking that folks assist in the problem definition
and solution development that George Sadowsky has started on this list.
Disclaimer: My views alone.
More information about the discuss