<html>
<body>
Dear Norbert,<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>I am afraid that repeating your position and
stating that you will repeat it again for the last time is not a
consensus but rather influence :-)<a name="_GoBack"></a>. <br>
Also, stating that your opponents have to put their political situation
at risk if they wish to oppose you, while you don’t risk yours, sounds
like an abuse of a dominant position !!! <br>
Ouhaou! This does not sound like you.<br><br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus</a> : <b>Consensus
decision-making</b> is a
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_decision_making">group
decision making</a> process that seeks the consent of all
participants. <br><br>
At 14:27 13/10/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The precise definition of
“consensus” is “lack of sustained opposition”.</blockquote><br>
This is an IETF “rough consensus”.<br>
Anyway, the dissensus on “consensus” definition is as old as the ICANN
and IG debate. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">That is what it means, not more,
not less. If some people are strongly<br>
in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain<br>
opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend
political<br>
capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a
decision<br>
in favor.</blockquote><br>
Is it not risky to state such a thing on a list that is watch by opposing
interests? If we are truly preparing a global summit, let get real:
several Agencies have a copy of our mails. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">If “consensus” meant that every
single person has to be in favor, most<br>
organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would
never<br>
reach any decisions.</blockquote><br>
Expressing a consensus means describing in a consensual decision in a way
that every single participant agrees on the way it is worded. If a single
position is documented this is a consensus, if several positions as well
as the way they decided to mutually relate is documented, it is a
multi-consensus. If the mutual relations have not been agreed on, this is
a disagreement. Otherwise, this is a dissensus.<br><br>
At this stage, the situation that we have reached is a dissensus.
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> we are effectively working
against each other here.<br><br>
Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some
of<br>
the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to<br>
discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action,
I<br>
strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working<br>
against each other here”.<br><br>
In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign
it<br>
does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits<br>
action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter
it<br>
could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter
it<br>
could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do<br>
understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently.<br><br>
> I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an<br>
> alternative. If that could be a solution for all<br><br>
No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since
I've<br>
already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present<br>
letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat<br>
them again.</blockquote><br>
I observe that there are several opposing strategies. The lack of
coordination between these strategies is detrimental to everyone, except
to the interests that I identify as gathered within USSH Inc. (the US
StakeHolders, incorporated in Montevideo).<br><br>
However, I do not think it is a superficial problem. It is
architectonical, that is to say related to the very nature of what
underlays the digital reality. The difference is between those who
consider that:<br><br>
- either it can be dealt with through politics (i.e. "the art of
commanding free people") because it is a political maneuver.<br>
- or it is deeper because structural civilizational interests are at
stake (a "coup" by ICANN against the WSIS and the ITU majority)
to impose the Telco’s market and radical monopolies against the control
of States. <br><br>
In my case, this leads me to identify that I can neither trust:<br><br>
- <b>Governments</b>, because their protection of me, as a citizen, is
the NSA and its different national equivalent yet they are unable to
protect their own secrets.<br><br>
- the <b>private sector </b>(the Montevidean signatories), because they
are disloyal to their own multistakeholderism and, therefore, more
probably to their own FRAND sales terms.<br><br>
- the<b> international organizations</b>, because they have no legitimacy
other than the support from everyone by everyone. At this stage (1) ITU
is divided and (2) this division leads to confusion through this possible
non-UN accepted counter-summit by ICANN/Brazil, where USSH inc. attempts
to trap the ITU majority that Brazil belongs to
(<a href="http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html</a>).<br><br>
- <b>Civil Society</b>, because it shows here that it has neither the
necessary multistakeholderist structure to explore, express, and sustain
a consensus nor the practical capacity to significantly influence the
other multistakeholder groups. I discover also that it is under
influence: it wants to send consensual letters when there is no
consensus.<br><br>
This means that I can only trust the machines that we all use because
"code is law" when we all are to use the same code. This means
that the only law that can be enforced is a "net open code" by
all and for all. I note that this actually is the internet normative
paradigm from the very beginning [what people remember as “democratic”]
that USSH inc. tries to change to the advantage of some. <br><br>
This definitly means that instead of talking about the ways to regulate
the use of a politically constrained digital architecture, the time has
come to free the code within its existing architecture - by its
acknowledged open use (as documented in RFC 5895) and, if necessary, to
question that architecture if it does not turn out to be safe/open enough
for our human digital rights, in particular our digital rights to
innovation and protection. Since IAB has decided to quit as a technical
guidance neutral referent (RFC 6852), the alternative can only be a
grassroots alternative.<br><br>
In such a case, there is no more dissensus between us but a possible
cooperation between two endeavors, one oriented toward Human Rights and
the other more specifically toward Human Digital Rights. <br><br>
Best<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
</body>
</html>