[discuss] Where am I wrong?

[Elisabeth Blanconil]

Concerning the outcome of the Sao Paulo meeting, I believe the same 
as ARIN concerning the best outcome for the WCIT. It should be one that:
- maintains the multi-stakeholder environment to the best extent possible.
- ensures the resulting Internet Governance best practices reflect 
high-level principles that are updated to meet today's environment.
- keeps technology neutral and does not mandate items that could have 
a detrimental effect on the Internet's evolution and stability.

This is not what I see being targeted on this list where are discussed:
- a DNS *Authority* (not an open MS system) while no definition is 
being given of the internet, the internet community, globalization, 
stakeholder, multi-stakeholderism functioning.
- technical details concerning one single authoritative DNS class 
over 35,635, the DNS being only one of the possible digital naming systems
- the technical numbers and parameters are tied to self-assumed 
monopolies (ICANN, RIRs) not originated from nor subject to the MS 
review of the internet community?

As such I can only observe that this /1net list certainly gathers 
good will persons, managers and experts but is in no-way legitimate 
in representing the non-defined internet community. I consider that 
multi-stakeholderism can only consist in empowering each stakeholder 
and observing the general decision that will emerge from the sum of 
their individual decisions.

This has been the case IRT the States where 89 of them signed the 
WCIT and 55 opposed, while I see on this list no consideration of the 
points signed by those 89 States that will certainly affect the shape 
of the future internet. I do not understand this un realistic and 
non-democratic attitude, even from members from the opposing 
minority. This looks like despising the majority.

This is also the case with the HomeRoot and the VGN experimentation. 
The list that claims to be representative when organizing an 
international meeting tries to disregard this high-level reality of 
the Internet technical project and this way to ignore propositions 
that could have detrimental or positive effect on the Internet's 
evolution and stability only because of its ignorance or of its lack 
of thinking of the matter. One has to realize that HomeRoots and VGN 
will probably broadly deploy now their MS concept are being taken as 
an individual informed capable and intelligent user (IUser) 
empowerment evidence. As such they will either help stabilizing the 
Internet in proving the values of the 55 States minority or lead to 
its destabilization showing why the 89 States majority was correct.

I would appreciate one tells me where I am wrong.
Hebe