<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global <<a href="mailto:jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net">jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I do blame the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a minus-zero level, and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a narrative that is now fully out of scope and concern. </div><div><br></div><div>Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it.</div><div><br></div><div>But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST. Therefore, I have no other choice than to denounce the multistakeholder fluff and its empty ideas.</div><div><br></div><div>That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with what you characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many friends in the US, honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only regret the way Internet Governance and its asymmetric situation have driven you guys out of your mind.</div><div><br></div><div><h1 class="title-blog" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-size: 32px; line-height: 36px; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto;">The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of Multistakeholderism</h1><div><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html</a></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><br></div><div>JC - </div><div><br></div><div>Interesting remarks (and blog post); one must admire your audacity in attempting to stick the label </div><div>"asymmetric" onto a position which specifically calls for "all stakeholders, including all governments, </div><div>participate on an equal footing." (perhaps your new "EQUAL IS ASYMMETRIC" slogan is presuming </div><div>availability of a Ministry of Truth for promotion? ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>After several readings, it would appear that the essence of your argument against the MS model is </div><div>given in these two sentences: </div><div><br></div><div>"The only problem is that this MS model is a very fluffy one, only supported by a high-level narrative and argumentative rhetoric with enough money so to be constantly repeated and inflated. The MS model keeps at bay any alternative Internet Governance that could build more trust, justice and equity around the globe. ... Their holly mission is to defend and protect the current status-quo, or any thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight under a MS Internet governance and its current imbalance."</div><div><br></div><div>So: </div><div> </div><div> 1) Very fluffy - keeping alternatives at bay </div><div> 2) Defends the status-quo, or thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight... and its current imbalance"</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the first point, Milton has invited you to provide some specific alternatives for reform.. </div><div>will any be forthcoming? It's not very difficult to keep a non-existent alternative at bay, but that fault</div><div>lies not with the existence of the Multistakeholder model...</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the second point, it completely discounts the reality that the Montevideo Statement has </div><div>helped open up the dialogue about moving away from the present situation with a unique USG</div><div>oversight role; this is the expected result of the call for equal footing for all participants (noted above). </div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps you can explain how increasing the dialog on equal participation on Internet governance can </div><div>be re-interpreted as an attempt "to preserve the US oversight"? </div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: My views alone.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></body></html>