<html>
<head>

    
  

</head>
<body style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<p>Shooting it and burying it in the backyard versus giving it a state
funeral so to speak </p>
<p>--srs (htc one x)<br>
</p>
<p>On 6 November 2013 10:31:12 AM parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite">

    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 06 November 2013 06:32 PM,
      Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div>India hasn't explicitly repudiated that proposal.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Which more or less goes against what you said in your earlier email.<br>
    <br>
    The following is a proposal that India distributed to the WGEC
    today, and I quote the relevant part<br>
    <br>
    "Thus there is a clear mandate for defining a mechanism for
    effective global Internet governance. The UN General Assembly could
    embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of
    international internet-related public policies. The proposed body
    should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and
    international organisations in advisory capacity within their
    respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such
    body should also develop globally applicable principles on public
    policy issues associated with the coordination and management of
    critical Internet resources". <br>
    <br>
    Does it sound like CIRP?<br>
    <br>
    And I can assure that this is a well considered official position of
    government of India, with agreement of all the concerned
    ministries,  and 'not the product of overzealousness of one
    bureaucrat or the other'. <br>
    <br>
    Here it is  not the question of whether I agree with the above
    position or not, but to clear falsehoods being spread systematically
    about India's position. BTW, this is not very different from the
    position articulated by Brazilian President in here recent UN
    speech, and I quote...<br>
    <br>
    <meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
    <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">"The United Nations must play a
      leading
      role in the effort to regulate the conduct of States with regard
      to these technologies. For this reason, Brazil will present
      proposals for the establishment of a civilian multilateral
      framework for the governance and use of
      the Internet and to ensure the effective protection of data that
      travels through the web. We need to create multilateral
      mechanisms for the worldwide network that are capable of ensuring
      principles such as:........"</p>
    <title></title>
    <meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
    <style type="text/css">
        <!--
                @page { margin: 2cm }
                P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
        -->
        </style><br>
    Public policy development spaces are urgently needed at the global
    level, We need to ensure these are as open and participative as
    possible, and that civil society has a strong role in these spaces,
    and these are connected appropriately to the IGF, without making the
    manifestly anti-democratic  demand that corporations, self selected
    civil society persons and such actually have an equal role as
    governments in decision making processes in terms of Internet
    related pubic policy making. Such a demand is no less unacceptable
    than a demand that pharma companies should have a veto over health
    policies at the global and national levels. <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net"
      type="cite">
      <div> They (and specifically Mr. Sibal) have only gone on to
        support something that is diametrically opposite to it, and
        strongly reaffirmed India's commitment to multi stakeholderism.</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>As for publicly repudiating a proposal - just a proposal mind
        you, not something actually signed or anything - made by one of
        their bureaucrats, why embarrass themselves by doing so, when it
        can be quietly buried and a much better proposal taken forward?</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Another mis representation.... It was an official input made under
    the name of government of India, fully signed by all that it needed
    to be signed by...<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net"
      type="cite">
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Same end result, thank God.<br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    The (end) result remains the quoted Indian position, re articulated
    today, as above.....<br>
    <br>
    parminder <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net"
      type="cite">
      <div> <br>
        --srs (iPad)</div>
      <div><br>
        On 06-Nov-2013, at 0:40, parminder <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
         
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>

        wrote:<br>
        <br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <div>
          <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
            http-equiv="Content-Type">
          <br>
          <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27
            PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote
            cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
            type="cite">
            <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
              charset=UTF-8">
            <div>But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by
              India,</div>
          </blockquote>
          <br>
          Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by
          India. the fact that they showed openness to engage with
          critical comments cannot be held against them. If they did
          engage, one is saying they have repudiated their earlier
          stand, if they hadnt engaged one would call them closed and
          inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you dont. <br>
          <br>
          Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its
          WGEC response - without the name though, and with an
          improvement of separating the treatment of the 'oversight'
          issue which India now wants to be seen separately from the
          mandate of the body which deals with general public policy
          issues related to the Internet. So, the Indian proposal for a
          new body for the latter purpose is still fully current. <br>
          <br>
          <blockquote
            cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
            type="cite">
            <div> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian
              bureaucrat.</div>
          </blockquote>
          <br>
          It was government of India proposal with clearance from the
          highest level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which
          has an overly conservative image even in UK, isnt the most
          authoritative source of Southern geo politics. <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <blockquote
            cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
            type="cite">
            <div>   And it never did have broad support or consensus
              that'd make it viable even if India had not repudiated it.</div>
          </blockquote>
          <br>
          Again, India never repudiated it.<br>
          <br>
          In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is
          one view on the subject, but that we need to begin a
          structured discussion on the needed institutional frameworks.<br>
          <br>
          parminder <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <br>
          parminder<br>
          <br>
          <blockquote
            cite="mid:E55E2C24-7C2C-4F97-8D9B-61DB428B45E6@hserus.net"
            type="cite">
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any
              comparison with the ICCP is thankfully, moot.<br>
              <br>
              --srs (iPad)</div>
            <div><br>
              On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder <<a
                moz-do-not-send="true"
               
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>


              wrote:<br>
              <br>
            </div>
            <blockquote type="cite">
              <div>
                <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
                  http-equiv="Content-Type">
                <br>
                <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 26 October 2013
                  09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
                </div>
                <blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
                  type="cite">
                  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
                    charset=UTF-8">
                  <div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
                    #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
                    <div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
                      color:#000000; font-size:10pt"><snip><br>
                      <br>
                      The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set
                      basically in stone by the end the year. Well not
                      the end of the year, say December 15.  Whether by
                      the coalition of the willing, or others.<br>
                      <br>
                      Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs,
                      Brazilian and other governments and oh yeah the
                      telco elephants definitely in the room have just 
                      7 weeks to come up with something sensible.<br>
                      <br>
                      So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the
                      panic of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does
                      sound like a scary thing...) will accomplish
                      anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op
                      to ward of the wicked plenipot)<br>
                      <br>
                      Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins
                      of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are
                      hearing:  zero<br>
                      <br>
                      Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else'
                      ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence
                      into existence: zero <br>
                      <br>
                       (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan
                      somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we
                      could do worse than starting with blowing up
                      OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global
                      model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar
                      daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer
                      prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but
                      has anyone advocated that or anything in
                      particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
                Lee,<br>
                <br>
                India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight
                part, is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a
                great improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal
                outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy
                development body' with the IGF.  In its latest
                submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate
                treatment of oversight and other public policy issues,
                and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I*
                oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it
                almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage
                bonus. <br>
                <br>
                And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs
                have given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1)
                develop an OECD ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with
                the internationalisation of oversight issue separately
                through a techno-political body with a very thin and
                clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and
                formally recognise the current distributed architecture
                of technical and logical infrastructure related policy
                making and implementation processes. <br>
                <br>
                In seeking some real movement forward on global IG,
                Brazilians have listed two key objectives for the
                proposed summit - outlines of an global institutional
                framework, and some global Internet related principles.
                <br>
                <br>
                I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global
                institutional framework for IG, under three distinct
                heads (1) Internet related public policy issues  (which
                category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some
                recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN
                oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure
                policy development and day to day technical operations.
                <br>
                <br>
                And another thread on key Internet principles, which can
                begin with some principles listed in  Dilma's UN speech
                as a good starting point. <br>
                <br>
                We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged
                down over procedural issues - and being reactive - first
                to the Brazil summit initiative, and then to the I*
                proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders coalition, which
                also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to
                get pro-active, and produce substantive positions
                towards the summit. <br>
                <br>
                parminder <br>
                <br>
                <br>
                <br>
                <br>
                <br>
                <blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
                  type="cite">
                  <div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
                    #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
                    <div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
                      color:#000000; font-size:10pt">And besides, since
                      when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot
                      matters? Someone needs to spend more time with
                      Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling
                      Plenipot war stories of the last several decades,
                      to realize what is really likely to happen there.
                      Or not.<br>
                      <br>
                      Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does
                      indeed smell like a classic 'Summit' in the
                      making, where the main outcome is indeed the group
                      hug/photo op. And a press release.<br>
                      <br>
                      If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2
                      cents:<br>
                      <br>
                      forget about the event and the photo op, and focus
                      on the 1-2 page press release. <br>
                      <br>
                      Because that's odds on the only significant thing
                      coming out of this.<br>
                      <br>
                      Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc
                      can boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want
                      from the summit, then we should say it. <br>
                      <br>
                      Rather than wasting time saying please may I
                      (participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to
                      the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we
                      are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops,
                      then: deal with it, and be very succinct.<br>
                      <br>
                      Lee<br>
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      <div style="font-family:Times New Roman;
                        color:#000000; font-size:16px">
                        <hr tabindex="-1">
                        <div id="divRpF134106" style="direction:ltr"><font
                            color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
                            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                              class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                             
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
                            [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                              class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                             
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
                            on behalf of David Cake [<a
                              moz-do-not-send="true"
                              class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                             
href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a>]<br>
                            <b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04
                            PM<br>
                            <b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                              class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                             
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
                            Milton L Mueller<br>
                            <b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best
                            Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime<br>
                          </font><br>
                        </div>
                        <div><br>
                          <div>
                            <div>On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L
                              Mueller <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU"
                                target="_blank">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>
                              wrote:</div>
                            <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
                            <blockquote type="cite">
                              <div style="font-family:Helvetica;
                                font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
                                font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
                                letter-spacing:normal;
                                line-height:normal; orphans:2;
                                text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
                                white-space:normal; widows:2;
                                word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
                                <div style="direction:ltr;
                                  font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt"><span
                                    style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">On

                                    Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David
                                    Cake </span><span dir="ltr"
                                    style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><<a
                                      moz-do-not-send="true"
                                      href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au"
                                      style="color:rgb(17,85,204)"
                                     
target="_blank">dave@difference.com.au</a>></span><span
                                    style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                   
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> wrote:</span><br
                                    style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
                                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
                                    style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                                    margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;
                                    border-left-width:1px;
                                    border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);
                                    border-left-style:solid;
                                    padding-left:1ex">
                                    <div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br>
                                      <div><span
                                         
style="white-space:pre-wrap"></span>Everything



                                        that Fadi etc have been saying
                                        says that their primary
                                        motivation is to avoid a
                                        multi-lateral government led
                                        body for Internet governance,
                                        that the ITU plenipot etc are
                                        forcing their timing (in their
                                        opinion), and that they are in a
                                        hurry to create a
                                        multi-stakeholder process that
                                        can stand as a clear
                                        alternative. And it is clear
                                        that they have no idea what
                                        exact form that will take, are
                                        very keen to have buy in from CS
                                        or any other group that will
                                        lend the effort credibility and
                                        participate constructively, and
                                        they are to a large extent
                                        rushing things largely due to
                                        circumstances/opportunity,
                                        improvising as they go, and
                                        basically dancing as fast as
                                        they can (and boy can Fadi
                                        dance). <br>
                                      </div>
                                    </div>
                                  </blockquote>
                                  <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
                                    <br>
                                  </div>
                                  <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                                    position:static; z-index:auto"> It
                                    is not possible to be a more adamant
                                    opponent of inter-governmental
                                    control of the internet than me.
                                    However, I feel very suspicious of
                                    the way the ITU bogeyman is used to
                                    rally uncritical support for hasty
                                    and often ill-considered responses.
                                    There was a Plenipot in 2010. The
                                    Internet survived. There was WCIT in
                                    2012. There was no serious attempt
                                    to take over the Internet, and the
                                    final treaty that provoked so much
                                    rejection was really not that bad.
                                    Now we are told we have to get all
                                    scared again and use the Rio meeting
                                    to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and
                                    the actual Internet governance
                                    institutions, but to deal with an
                                    extremely broad agenda merely in
                                    order to pre-empt the ITU. </div>
                                </div>
                              </div>
                            </blockquote>
                            <div><br>
                            </div>
                            <span class="Apple-tab-span"
                              style="white-space:pre"></span>Fadi
                            claimed to have spoken to several government
                            leaders (of nations like South Korea) who
                            had become more inclined to multi-lateralism
                            since WCIT, with the additional impetus of
                            post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The
                            Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil
                            etc seems to have been prompted by a strong
                            feeling among the I* that the current
                            political climate is worse than in 2010, or
                            even in 2012. I can't say whether their
                            impressions are correct, but it does seem
                            likely that they would strongly reject the
                            line of argument you are putting here. </div>
                          <div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
                              style="white-space:pre"></span>I don't
                            think we have been told we can't use the
                            Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other
                            institutions. The incorporation of a change
                            in the IANA contract at least opens up some
                            aspects of ICANN oversight for
                            renegotiation, I would have thought. And
                            good.</div>
                          <div><br>
                          </div>
                          <div><br>
                            <blockquote type="cite">
                              <div style="font-family:Helvetica;
                                font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
                                font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
                                letter-spacing:normal;
                                line-height:normal; orphans:2;
                                text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
                                white-space:normal; widows:2;
                                word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
                                <div style="direction:ltr;
                                  font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt">
                                  <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                                    position:static; z-index:auto"> And
                                    yet, Brazil is basically defecting
                                    from the pro-government coalition,
                                    the WCIT results have made it clear
                                    that there is nothing close to an
                                    international consensus on inserting
                                    the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit
                                    more sober and realistic about what
                                    is happening? </div>
                                </div>
                              </div>
                            </blockquote>
                            <div><br>
                            </div>
                            <div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
                                style="white-space:pre"></span>Well,
                              sure - but Fadi has more contact with
                              government leaders than I do, so if he
                              says things are substantially worse since
                              WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him
                              either. </div>
                            <br>
                            <blockquote type="cite">
                              <div style="font-family:Helvetica;
                                font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
                                font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
                                letter-spacing:normal;
                                line-height:normal; orphans:2;
                                text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
                                white-space:normal; widows:2;
                                word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
                                <div style="direction:ltr;
                                  font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt">
                                  <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                                    position:static; z-index:auto"> More
                                    to the point, why don't WE try to
                                    set the agenda, instead of letting
                                    those who run the I* institutions do
                                    so? Why are you always reacting to
                                    their initiatives instead of taking
                                    your own?</div>
                                </div>
                              </div>
                            </blockquote>
                            <div><br>
                            </div>
                            <span class="Apple-tab-span"
                              style="white-space:pre"></span>We could
                            have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs
                            panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were
                            hoping something would emerge spontaneously
                            post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they
                            perceived it as becoming urgent they started
                            the process themselves. </div>
                          <div><br>
                          </div>
                          <div><br>
                            <blockquote type="cite">
                              <div style="font-family:Helvetica;
                                font-size:medium; font-style:normal;
                                font-variant:normal; font-weight:normal;
                                letter-spacing:normal;
                                line-height:normal; orphans:2;
                                text-indent:0px; text-transform:none;
                                white-space:normal; widows:2;
                                word-spacing:0px; word-wrap:break-word">
                                <div style="direction:ltr;
                                  font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt">
                                  <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
                                     </div>
                                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
                                    style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                                    margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;
                                    border-left-width:1px;
                                    border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);
                                    border-left-style:solid;
                                    padding-left:1ex">
                                    <div style="word-wrap:break-word">
                                      <div> </div>
                                      <div>This isn't an ICANN centric
                                        process. Yes, a renewed
                                        discussion about IANA and ICANN
                                        accountability can, and should,
                                        form part of that discussion. I
                                        can assure others in civil
                                        society that those of us
                                        involved with ICANN (including
                                        Milton and myself) are very keen
                                        to lead critical discussions
                                        about ICANN accountability. I
                                        find it very odd over the last
                                        few days to be cast into the
                                        role of defender of ICANN
                                        against paranoia and
                                        misinformation - there are quite
                                        enough valid reasons to
                                        criticise ICANN (and the near
                                        allergic reaction to the idea of
                                        real accountability from parts
                                        of its leadership are among
                                        them) without making up
                                        conspiracies or misrepresenting
                                        its processes. <br>
                                      </div>
                                      <div><br>
                                      </div>
                                    </div>
                                  </blockquote>
                                  <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
                                    <br>
                                  </div>
                                  <div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);
                                    font-family:arial; font-size:small;
                                    background-color:rgb(255,255,255);
                                    position:static; z-index:auto"> I
                                    don't see any paranoia or
                                    misinformation about ICANN in my
                                    messages. I just see a long-term
                                    understanding of how we need to
                                    reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism
                                    about CS being used (again), and a
                                    determination to take advantage of
                                    Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful
                                    initiative. I do appreciate some of
                                    the things Fadi has done. I just
                                    don't think we need to be driven by
                                    fear. </div>
                                </div>
                              </div>
                            </blockquote>
                            <br>
                          </div>
                          <span class="Apple-tab-span"
                            style="white-space:pre"></span>Well, you did
                          sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory,
                          but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't
                          aimed at you specifically, as of course you do
                          have strong understanding of ICANNs processes,
                          though you do still seem to see this through a
                          somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I
                          still think is likely to not be so useful a
                          perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to
                          discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN,
                          etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be
                          the main focus of any of what the Brazil
                          meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central
                          role might have more to do with Fadi
                          personally choosing to push the process
                          along. 
                          <div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
                              style="white-space:pre"></span><br>
                            <div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
                                style="white-space:pre"></span>Regards</div>
                            <div><br>
                            </div>
                            <div><span class="Apple-tab-span"
                                style="white-space:pre"></span>David</div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
            <blockquote type="cite">
             
<div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br>
                <span>You received this message as a subscriber on the
                  list:</span><br>
                <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                   
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br>
                <span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br>
                <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                   
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br>
                <span></span><br>
                <span>For all other list information and functions,
see:</span><br>
                <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                   
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br>
                <span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's
                  charter, see:</span><br>
                <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                   
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br>
                <span></span><br>
                <span>Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                   
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </blockquote>
          <br>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <blockquote type="cite">
       
<div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br>
          <span>You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:</span><br>
          <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
             
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br>
          <span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br>
          <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
             
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br>
          <span></span><br>
          <span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br>
          <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
             
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br>
          <span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,
see:</span><br>
          <span>     <a moz-do-not-send="true"
             
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br>
          <span></span><br>
          <span>Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
             
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </blockquote>
</body>
</html>