<html>
<body>
At 17:17 24/09/2013, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Three mentions to
"multilateral". <br>
No mention to "multistakeholder".</blockquote><br>
Multilateralism is a mathematical quality (from a triangle and up).
Multistakeholderism is a constitutional vision of the world.<br><br>
By nature the four multistakeholders groups have to make multilateral
decisions or reach multiconsensuses as they have to manage enhanced
cooperation projects and functions. This multilateral multistakeholder
process is debatted and advised by dynamic coalitions. <br><br>
At 02:58 25/09/2013, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">My reading of that is that: (1)
it does not repeat the idea that Internet governance as a collective
creation and (2) the first one defines Internet governance as something
"with the participation of the various sectors of society", and
the second only mentions it should be carried out with stimuli for
"the participation of society, governments and the private
sector."</blockquote><br>
Multitakeholderism is a process by which everyone can participate to the
polycratic addressing of multilateral problems or contribution to
multilateral decisions (that often also happen to be of multidimensional
resulting in multilateral subsidiary discussions). It necessarily has
national constitutional implications that technology, cultures,
agreements, etc. may favor but dictate to other states nor demanded
as prerequisites for international action. When she speaks in the UN, she
speaks as a sovereign Government, i.e. a stakeholder in the international
institutions group.<br><br>
----<br><br>
In this case, "multilaterality" is in logical opposition to
"unilaterality".<br><br>
This is because it appears that a "Network Secret Architecture"
(NSA) has been unilateraly used under the cover of the TCP/IP technology
by ISOC's bodies (IAB, IETF, IRTF), members (industry, experts, e.g. Vint
Cerf) and partners (IEEE, W3C), and is operationnally imposed via ICANN.
The question is to understand:<br><br>
- if the OpenStand modern paradigm (RFC 6852) is:<br>
-- a consolidation of the NSArchitecture <br>
-- or to the countrary a declaration of independance from the USG
technical influence after a lack of response to the RFC 3869 call for
more USG funding for the Internet R&D. <br><br>
- if we can trust, discuss with, complement or have to contradict
OpenStand through the OpenUse grassroots paradigm we are to document.
<br><br>
The response to these two questions is the purpose of my on-going appeal
to IESG/IAB/ISOC on the matter.<br><br>
The today position of LACNIC is of interest since LACNIC has endorsed the
OpenStand paradigm
<a href="http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/" eudora="autourl">
http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/</a> and stated: "<i>We
are also committed to raise awareness in our region that the modern
paradigm is complementary to traditional international standards
development approaches.” </i>This complementarity between ISOC bodies,
sponsors and members and the NSA seems to be what Dilma Rousselff is not
happy with. We will observe if LACNIC keeps its endorcment or
not.<br><br>
<i>jfc<br><br>
</i>PS. I understand that the Network Secret Architecture scope has
scaled to hardware:
<a href="https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/surreptitiously.html" eudora="autourl">
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/surreptitiously.html</a>.
This means that one can trust neither software, nor firmware, nor
hardware: we are back to usual brainware conditions.<br>
</body>
</html>