<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Tim,<div><br></div><div>Big words again. 'Outrageous'... héhé</div><div><br></div><div>I leave it to anyone listening to the full session to appreciate the value of what was said. I think I brought to the list interesting (if not shocking) few facts, and thoughts that show the way someone with a few responsibilities in the IG fora is thinking, addressing issues, and recommending to stop the 'counter-revolutionaries' he sees coming against the good 'revolutionaries'. Bas les masques!</div><div><br></div><div>Any debate, specially when it comes to governance, should have in mind the idea of 'convergence', at least to find consensus, and ability to work together. The '<i>not-a-single-thing-of-everything</i>' theory seems to me pretty crypto ideologic, and that is a personal opinion (am I allowed to have one?). </div><div><br></div><div>When George is speaking about a terminology issue - good point to look at-, do we imagine that we can solve this terminology issue by getting more definitions for each single concept, wording, expression ("let blossom the flowers of a thousand definition" says AP)? Is that the way you think a democratic venue should try to move forward, by maintaining a high level of confusion? That in my view is outrageous.</div><div><br></div><div>Would Postel, which signature is respectfully and constantly backing your signature, rejoice in a multi-definitions systematic approach for a single word/concept so to keep a never ending debate. Postel was against the waste of time, the waste of bytes, the waste of , and presumably against smoke and fog. The major challenge out of the RFC was to bring clarity for a common culture and common values to emerge. All of what AP says is entirely in opposition to that. I think the IG debate deserves clarity, not walls of blabla to be construct and deconstruct every two seconds.</div><div><br></div><div>JC</div><div><br></div><div>NB</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>it is difficult to imagine that he did<br>it from his own initiative</div></blockquote><br></div><div>Yes indeed, it is difficult to imagine. Any problem with that? Was this an uninformed accusation? Well, I will not debate your definition of what is an uninformed accusation but I still believe it is difficult to imagine...</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>Le 10 déc. 2013 à 23:50, McTim a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias<br><<a href="mailto:jeanchristophe.nothias@gmail.com">jeanchristophe.nothias@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Hi Georges,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS<br></blockquote><br>They are just one input that we can embrace or reject. I think they<br>are quite reasonable (separating ICANN issues from surveillance,<br>rejecting a single definition of IG, pushing forward on evolution of<br>the unilateral role of the US).<br><br><br><br>, to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a<br>2014-discussion.<br><br>If anything it pushes us forward to tangible results.<br><br> Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words<br>(orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did<br>it from his own initiative.<br><br>Now that is outrageous. Why would you make such an uninformed<br>accusation? You have zero basis for such a claim!<br><br><br> All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate.<br><br><br>There was nothing shocking there. Are there any of us that accept the<br>WGIG definition as the ONLY definition of IG?<br><br><br>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>