<html>
<body>
At 18:54 30/07/2013, parminder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">If you know of similar
questionable things being done earlier, it for you to have pointed them
out, and to point them out now... No, i dont know of them. Adam's email
suggests that things were rather fine and straight at Kenya. I really
remember no company logos hanging around, nor I am sure speaking/
chairing slots were proposed or given against
donations.</blockquote><br>
Dear Parminder and Norbert,<br><br>
There is no need to try to prove anything here. Selling technical
influence was condemned by IAB RFC 3869. It was "before". 3,000
RFCs ago. A time when everyone used to confuse the Internet with
cyberspace, the digital ecosystem, the Information Society, etc.<br><br>
Today, it is the <b><u>new “OpenStand” Internet paradigm</u> </b>that
is<b> </b>advocated by ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C, and IEEE and consistently
under deployment
(<a href="http://open-stand.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://open-stand.org</a>). They have well documented it in the IAB RFC
6852. Along this "modern" paradigm, the Internet development is
to address the market needs of "global communities" (i.e.,
among others, their sponsors' customer bases). The opportune lack of
Indonesian IGF funding only helps in making this new vision more easily
accepted, on the ground of pragmatism.<br><br>
As a participant in the international normalization process, as a French
citizen and as a Civil Society member, I have no objection to this long
awaited confirmation that industry is in the internet network business to
make money and pay share-holders and salaries. However, my objection is
that: <br><br>
- States do not consider how to protect us better on the internet, now or
in the future (their precautionary duty) <br>
- International organizations do not consider how to better protect
network neutrality, cultural diversity, millennium objectives, and
international data from algorithmic interferences.<br>
- Civil Society does not study, specify, or test how all of us could more
intelligently, efficiently, and robustly use the Internet, foster
technological competition, and unlock innovation.<br><br>
This is why I think our role is not anymore to protest, suggest, or
document, but to concert and enact true cyberspace management enhanced
cooperation. The IAB response to my appeal is that they are not in charge
of the world's digital architectonics (i.e. what makes internet, TV,
telephone, etc. and people compatibly work and what motivates
innovation). They only care about the return of the end to end internet
1983 architecture. This means that no one is supposed to care about where
we wish to go digitally. We only know that we are to consume it.
<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>I have nothing against paying, as long as I get
something that suits my needs. To be sure of it, I prefer, however,
debating specifications rather than answering market studies.<br>
<br>
Cheers.<br>
jfc<br>
<a href="http://architf.org/" eudora="autourl">http://architf.org<br><br>
<br><br>
</a></body>
</html>