<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
On Jan 8, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <<a href="mailto:jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net">jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="orphans: auto; widows: auto;"><span style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2; font-family: Optima; font-size: inherit;">Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:45, John Curran a écrit :</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <<a href="mailto:jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net">jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You claimed "the existence of these meetings has now become a public information"... If you<br>
mean that that they now are more visible, then we're in agreement (and quite expected given<br>
the Montevideo Statement)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
We agree on this<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
However, implying that there was no public information available previously and that the very
<br>
existence of these meetings was unavailable to the public is a specious claim.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
What Lynn Saint Amour said is that these meetings were not publicized on purpose. A rather odd strategy of communication in a world that claims transparency against all behind-the-doors meetings by others. The point to know if there was a public information
available or not is not really the point. The point is the 'intention'. The will behind a situation. This is what is so important in LSA statement.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the contrary, implying that there was a public information available, and that the very existence of these meetings was known from the public is a specious disclaim.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We agree that there was public information about the meetings, but not a high-level of </div>
<div>public awareness of these meetings before the Montevideo Statement.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As CEO of ARIN, I have lots of meetings with other organizations; this is generally to</div>
<div>coordinate aspects of various activities that have mutual involvement. The fact that </div>
<div>I meet with leaders from ICANN, or ISOC, or the IAB is quite routine, as there is quite</div>
<div>a bit of routine inter-organizational coordination required in maintenance of the IANA </div>
<div>registries.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">Not anything close to a "governing board", just the leaders of the existing organizations getting <br>
together to coordinate actions between their organizations (and their certainly with no imprimatur
<br>
of any country)<br>
</blockquote>
<div>Again, such regular meetings can be named whatever one wishes to, the coordination done during these meetings is not about the size of the fonts on your respective websites. When discussing which strategy is to defined in reaction to the WCIT or NSA trust
IG crisis (part of the asymmetric situation we are all dealing with), and then coming up with a publicized or not publicized idea such as the 1net, is exactly what a governing body is about: think and make decision in order to act upon events and people. In
the open or in the hidden. At this stage we have no information if other 'ideas' had emerged from these meetings. Maybe yes, maybe no.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You keep missing the point that the I* meetings between the various leaders</div>
<div>are a _coordination meeting_; there is no applicable governance over the involved</div>
<div>organizations. Each of the Internet organizations have their own decision making </div>
<div>processes and community of interest. For example, in the case of ARIN, the</div>
<div>thinking about what ARIN's position in such matters was done long before the </div>
<div>I* meeting (as a result of discussions with ARIN community), and is reflected on our </div>
<div>web site <<a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/arin.html">https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/arin.html</a>> and in our past </div>
<div>statements on these matters. As the discussion and Montevideo Statement had</div>
<div>a high-level of overlap with ARIN's existing positions, I had the ARIN Board confirm </div>
<div>our agreement with the position and then signed the statement.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The meetings can't "make a decision" on behalf of anybody, at best they can find</div>
<div>existing commonality of views and positions among the parties.</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>
<div>By the way, I find the I-stars naming really cool. I prefer it to the G20 naming. I hope you had a good drink over this one. The Internet Stars!! No offense John.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>I believe it emerged as short-hand for referencing a set of organizations that </div>
<div>predominantly begin with the letter "I" [ISOC, ICANN, IAB, IANA, etc.], with </div>
<div>"*" being used in typical pattern matching context.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>FYI,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>