<html>
<body>
At 20:30 28/09/2014, Barry Shein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I really don't get this
"multi-stakeholder" model and don't see how it can lead to
anything but what I describe. </blockquote><br>
Barry,<br><br>
there is something we need to accept. The interrnet does not belong to
everyone: it is everyone. <br><br>
This is why any strategy, behaviour, thinking which considers it as
something you can control outside of the others' people accepted social
forms of governance (administration, justice, police, society, army,
etc. etc.) will technically fail at some stage. People do not want
deregulation they want protection of their life, interests,
liberty.<br><br>
This means that when the US denigrates "governments", they
actually virtually invade their country. <br>
They may see it as a "liberation" of the country's people, but
the "liberated" people - having this way got the liberty to
purchase US goods in US dollars - may not see it that way and retaliate
in their own different ways. It seems that for a couple of decades the US
should have understood it.<br><br>
Now, the US are not the only would be invaders. <br>
Others may also want to politically oppose the US interests in
illegitimate manners, and the US have an full legitimacy to counter them
or to prevent their agression. <br><br>
This is the normal diplomatic process. The problem is that globalization
has raised the physical war threshold and replaced it it by new forms of
wars including brain washing, financial crisis, cyberwarfare, cultural
influence, righte and duty to intervene, etc. and the time-space relation
has made precautionary conterwars something rather new we do not fully
understand yet.<br><br>
We have to accept that we are at war. And that this war is rather new
because it is global: eveyone is at war with everyone. This war is also
rather new because the engaged powers are public, private and civil (some
XIIth century kind of warring) with the economical and financial
emergence of new kind of sovereignties (Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. in
our area). It enlists many mercenaries, disembarking the in the meetings
(i.e. battles of influence). Etc.<br><br>
IMHO the solution we have is to keep ourselves outside of their global
coalitions, actions, battles, etc. and look at our local interests,
minding our own business rather than the ones of the big network leaders,
and protecting ourselves from their plundering. This is why the VGN
notion and management is so important. <br><br>
They keep saying the internet belongs to every of "us" (us bing
the "stakeholders"', the net nobility)? <br>
Let make it work as being every of us (the network commoners).<br><br>
How that? May be can the techies on the list to join the
<a href="http://mycann.org/" eudora="autourl">http://mycann.org</a>
effort to discuss the <b>mycann-plug-in</b>. Be you own VGN master or
member.<br>
Some said "a client not a consumer".<br><br>
Why to waste time and money at attending their meetings instead of
spending this time and money at being fee and self-protected ?<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
</body>
</html>