<html>
<body>
At 16:08 26/09/2013, Joana Varon wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Ok. so here is what we will do.
<br><br>
1) Item 4 will be changed to: <br>
"Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by
CGI.br",<br><br>
<font face="arial" color="#500050">2) Jeremy and I will send an email
noting it to all the people who already endorsed, noting this change and
giving them the posibility to withdraw their support (which I think will
be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will
be happy to have ICG, APC, etc supporting the statement and more
important, we got your points on the dangerous of the current
version.</font></blockquote><br>
I eventually keep supporting that "bold" totally
non-informational text which tells nothing to me. Candidly, I have not
the slightest idea of how the Brazilian model differs from mine, or
improve it. Would I be a regular news-reader from anywhere in the world
paying some attention I would only think; "what the hell
"multistakholder model" may mean?" <br><br>
Never the less, for me, the information I will rember is that:<br><br>
- in the name of multistakeholderism,<br>
- astroturf sales,<br>
- democratic transparence,<br>
- and purity of social capitalism, <br>
- civil society activists have had to hide that:<br><br>
- somewhere in the world <br>
- the head of a large state <br>
- has internationally engaged an incisive policy <br>
- concerning one of the US internet blunders <br>
- that has been devised in common with representatives from Government,
Scientific and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society
<br>
- on an equal footing.<br><br>
This information, plus paid T&Ls to Bali plus the GNI confusion
attempt in the middle of the debate were worth a private NSA report (by
the way: "hello to the NSA morning watch people!").<br>
jfc<br><br>
</body>
</html>