[discuss] NETmundial and CSTD mtg

Michel S. Gauthier mg at telepresse.com
Sun May 18 19:13:58 UTC 2014

At 14:28 18/05/2014, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
><much snipped for brevity>
>We do need to hear more from the existing and traditional 
>institutions such as those you mention, but I think it is even more 
>important to hear from those that we don't hear from - I will speak 
>to the High Commissioner for Human Rights' office and I asked the 
>International Trade Centre's DG last Friday to consider organising a 
>session, as they're doing really constructive work in many countries 
>around the world to help SMEs leverage the Internet for social and 
>economic advancement.
>We need to hear from those organisations who are working on 
>'Internet public policy issues' that are not centrally about the 
>Internet, but about social issues where there is an Internet 
>dimension. Not only do those organisations need the benefit of this 
>community and its knowledge and expertise, we also need theirs: we 
>don't need to reinvent wheels. IMHO.

Dear Nick,

your inputs are serious and realistic. And therefore most welcome.

The feeling you give is that you report an opposition between 
"government sovereignties" and "multistakeholders including 
governments sovereignties". This looks very much like kings +/vs. 
cross bondary feodalism. States vs. States cum TNCs. This incidently 
amuzingly translates into privateTLDs wanting to be equal to 
ccTLDs,...  at least among people believing that the internet is the 
real world and ICANN the digital UN. Reality is in TPP, TAFTA, etc., 
cyberwar, economic colonization, etc.

What I observe in technology, people attitude, events, etc. is 
however the progress of something that some qualify of "digital 
attitude" or  "digitailty" which is the addition of a new sense (i.e. 
an organic capacity that provides data for perception) we might call 
"digital hearing" which not only spans across physical boundaries 
(what questions states) but also across market communities 
(endangering the new world commercial order). This means that states 
*and* market leaders fear and try to build defenses against the same 
global multitude. Geneva seems to host their real discussions while 
Sao Paulo would have proceeded from a kind of deception strategy?

>At 13:02 18/05/2014, joseph alhadeff wrote:
>I think, we have to create a totaly independent discussion about our 
>data transport sytems. Without state or private companies. Only with 
>the people.

Is that not the reason why the IETF created the iucg at ietf.org mailing list?


More information about the discuss mailing list