[discuss] ITU - Internet related Resolutions
woody at pch.net
Mon Oct 27 13:48:30 UTC 2014
Internal division. CGI is on the side of right, ANATEL does what it can to spite them. ITU is intergovernmental, so ANATEL gets to make Brazil look foolish in this venue, despite CGI's admirable work. Brazil cuts off its nose to spite its face.
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 22:33, "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am curious to know why Brazil is on the side of Russia, despite embracing the multi-stakeholder model, demonstrated recently by Dilma Roussef's support for NetMundial and despite the proven success of nic.br's multi-stakeholder model, despite the benevolent influence of Brazilian Community Leaders like Harmut Glaser. What caused Brazil to be part of IBSA and why is it on the wrong side?
> Sivasubramanian M
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
>> > On Oct 26, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Adam <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>> > Is Saudi speaking for a large block of countries?
>> In so far as lines are drawn, here’s what I’ve observed this evening:
>> On one side:
>> The Internets
>> United Kingdom
>> New Zealand
>> On the other side:
>> Saudi Arabia
>> Helpful grammar authoritarians, who are striving to make evil documents at least marginally intelligible:
>> Meeting concluded with an admonishment by the chair to Saudi Arabia to consider limiting its contributions to ones which “reflect present reality.”
>> The Internet-issues ad-hoc reconvenes at 18:00 on Wednesday, unless the secretariat is able to find an earlier time.
>> Fact-checking the idiocy that’s spouted in this room is surprisingly difficult, given 85% packet loss getting out of the building. One could be cynical about that, but I’ll resist the urge.
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss