<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css" style="">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body aria-label="Message body" fpstyle="1" tabindex="0" dir="ltr">
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper" id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-family: Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000; margin: 0">
<br>
<div style="color:rgb(40,40,40)">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> But since then, all the arrangements that have been made for 1net to take <br>
> a special role in the Brazil meeting have been made with the man behind <br>
> the curtain, not with the members of the 1net mailing list, nor even the (then <br>
> inchoate) 1net steering committee.<br>
<br>
This is where your reasoning goes off the rails, Jeremy. The 1net steering committee had to be constituted, didn't it?
<br>
To call it "inchoate" is a bit disingenuous; it DIDN'T EXIST YET and had to be created through the processes and agreements that were established beforehand.
<br>
I really think you need to read about the bootstrapping problem in the paper I wrote with Ben. ;-)<br>
<br>
> 1net has just been a smokescreen for the technical community to deal with <br>
> Brazil under cover of what they can claim to be an open, multi-stakeholder <br>
> dialogue.<br>
<br>
Again, a lack of logic. One the one hand you want to treat 1net as if it were a spontaneously generated community that demands to renegotiate from scratch its relationship to the Brazil meeting, on the other hand you claim that it is a puppet of the ITC. Both
extremes are wrong. In fact, 1net was hastily started by ICANN and the RIRs, initially as a somewhat poorly conceived idea - but since then I don't see a lot of top down control over the composition of the 1net steering committee. Seems to me they've done
what they said they were going to do. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
> [ICANN] should have been up-front about that, rather than maintaining the <br>
> fallacy that the real partner of the meeting was actually 1net, a new <br>
> multi-stakeholder dialogue that didn't even exist or have the capacity to <br>
> make decisions for itself when these deals were being struck.<br>
<br>
I don't see any pretense about this. <br>
<br>
> I'm not against the Brazil meeting, and it's the meeting committees that are <br>
> to liaise between the organisers and their constituents. I think it would be <br>
> a great idea for 1net to decide for itself what it should be doing<br>
> rather than be told that it's a co-organiser of the Brazil meeting regardless <br>
> of the wishes of its participants or the historical facts. <br>
<br>
Weak response. What would you have it do? You have no serious agenda, which is why you're coming off as obstructionist. You seem to be keen to prevent it from doing something that most people think it was created to do, but you have not suggested anything serious
that it should be doing, except perhaps sit around and quibble about what it should do.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>