<html>
<body>
For the things to be clear but no one feels hurt, I will use my personal
example. Funding and position that I consider as not represented.
<br><br>
<br>
<b>1. Disclosure:<br><br>
</b>I have been involved in the international network stewardship for 35
years. I was paid for that for the first 8 years by the US value added
carrier licensed by the FCC to create and manage the namespace, which
built and operated 100% of the initial international liaisons of the US
IRCs and foreign public operators (Tymnet).<br><br>
Since 1986, I have been self-funding my R&D, involvement, actions,
IETF participation, and a few travels, by my professional practice in
digisphere areas. This was/is not easy but it has preserved my personal
independence from any influence, allowed me to be authoritative in my
actions, and to only focus on what I consider as able to help peace and
the best human common interest in designing, using, and managing the
world digital ecosystem and its meshed network of relational spaces of
various kinds, protocols, and natures.<br><br>
<br>
<b>2. Civil Society definition<br><br>
</b>My definition of Civil Society is "everyone who pays all of
his/her digital use out of his/her pockets through his/her own
non-commercial or non-government ultimately decided work." This
definition does not make a difference between North and South.
Incidentally, it also seamlessly filters the lack of competence and
motivation: why to spend his/her own money for something one does not
feel fully competent or strongly competent about? <br><br>
However, it does not erase the difference in people's personal local
revenue level and T&L costs depending on the relative locations where
solutions should be found, through strong-arm negotiating tactics if
necessary.<br><br>
<br>
<b>3. CS representation<br><br>
</b>Civil society's power is through elections, strikes, riots,
revolution, and lead-usership's innovation power. Let us organize a CS
strike as long as the pertinent CS representation costs are not founded
by the other three stakeholder groups that have our money (taxes, sales),
and are illegitimate without us. <br><br>
If our "representatives" are unable to manage their own
representation in an authoritative (i.e. independent, efficient,
intelligent, etc.) manner, how could they usefully represent us? What
kind of internationally successful negotiator for our collective
interests could be those who did not succeed in negotiating a fully
transparent, neutral, and collective solution to fund our collective
representation?<br><br>
<br>
<b>4. CS organization are not motivated<br><br>
</b>Let it be clear that the digisphere stewardship calls for the
enhanced cooperation:<br>
- of four stakeholder groups: regalian domain, private sector,
multilateral fabric, and all the others categorized as "civil
society".<br>
- in four directions, which are the short, medium, long term and their
daily administration (these are the operance, governance, concordance,
and adminance areas).<br>
- by responsible people proving their independence and authority in the
concerned areas. <br><br>
Regalian domain, private sector, and organizations belonging to the
multilateral fabric are organizationally and economically structured.
Civil society also has organizations (unions, churches, foundations,
NG/POs). These structures can more or less afford the expenses related to
the digisphere international stewardship debate but they are to be
convinced that these results will be worth the expense. <br><br>
This is not the case as shows in:<br>
- the lack of non-dedicated civil society organizations/structures.<br>
- the lack of results obtained by civil society participants.<br><br>
<br>
<b>5. Toward a CS simple self-affirmation?<br><br>
</b>It seems this is because some Governments and now Industry have very
well understood the famous quote of Dr. Lessig, in the digisphere that
"code is law". Therefore, in order to control the law, they
want to control the code. This is the long, ongoing result of the
"year 1972 bug"
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/Year_1972_bug">
http://iucg.org/wiki/Year_1972_bug</a> (or the oldest virus, long before
Stuxnet, to defuse risks of the “nets” intelligent use)<br><br>
This why our demands should be (we can manage this by our own and let it
be clear in the press):<br>
1. use of an unmonitored mail exchange technology for the entire
stakeholder debate. <br>
2. structured stakeholder groups’ contribution to a CS-Representation
Fund (MAG and meetings) whose members’ selection comity will be drawn by
lot.<br>
3. lobbyists should be separately registered from CS funded participants.
Wearing the name of their sponsor(s) on their person.<br><br>
In addition, we should have two clarification recurrent claims: <br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>1. ICANN is to be considered through its
ICANN/ICP-3 document.<br>
2. every debates (starting with ours) are to be balanced between
stewardship politics and open innovation.<br><br>
jfc </body>
</html>