<html>
<body>
At 11:31 27/08/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">A centre generally does exclude
extreme opinions on either side of the political spectrum<br>
Feel free to list them, but if you wish to proceed further than just a
laundry list of statements, then working toward consensus - across
stakeholder groups - becomes inevitable.</blockquote><br>
Trimmed for commercial community pads receivers and to stay as
non-partisan as possible.<br><br>
Suresh,<br><br>
We confuse the usual consensus/compromise issue. We disagree on
compromise: therefore the consensus can only be a multi-consensus. It
means that we have consensually described and report our lack of
consensus, which the sub-consensus are, and the way for the various
identified sub-consensual communities interelate. <br><br>
The question is: "do we trust Milton to present this
multi-consensus, or do we fear he introduces his own vision of a
compromise?"<br>
The issue is: "what is to be enhanced cooperation within the
Internet Governance?". <br><br>
The IGF is the Internet Governance Forum, for Govs, Corps, International
Orgs and CS to concert about the Internet and develop enhanced
cooperations supported by dynamic coalitions. The task of understanding
what is enhanced cooperation was to be worked on through the IGF.
<br><br>
This has been done:<br><br>
- most of the CS (most people on this list) and Govs have worked along an
intellectual/legal point approach of the Governance.<br><br>
- for two years last week, those (including CS people like me) who have
worked from a pragmatic evaluation of the Internet have <br>
- come to a paradigmatic/consensual understanding, <br>
- published it, <br>
- and acted upon it. <br><br>
- I questionned that understanding (IETF appeal) because it could
be out of tune with the CS and Govs (WCIT) majority approaches. <br><br>
- However, while I was reaching the ultimate layer (ISOC appeal),
the NTIA preempted their response in bridging their minority (WCIT)
Government position both with the technical community consensus, and with
the common thinking of the industry incumbents (which geographically fall
under US legal jurisdiction).<br><br>
The question becomes: "do we think Milton will think and speak along
an obsolete or an up to date reality framework?".<br><br>
Depending on the case Milton will either sound as:<br>
- out of tune with all those who have accepted it (we are talking about
their "huge bounty").<br>
- or able to correct the probably suicidal money centric creep and lead
it back to its people centered assignement.<br><br>
<br>
For the time being "Enhanced cooperation" has therefore
been:<br><br>
- <b>defined</b>: at the normative layer <br>
by the OpenStand (RFC 6852) Affirmation,<br><br>
-<b> approved</b>: at the strategic layer<br>
by the Montevideo Statement,<br><br>
-<b> enacted</b>: at the political layer <br>
by SaoPaulo's NetMundial <br><br>
- now <b>pursued</b>: at global governance layer<br>
by its economical WEF planned mentors.<br><br>
The eventual questions therefore are:<br><br>
1. "do we trust Milton to present this multi-consensus, or do we
fear he introduces his own vision of a compromise?"<br>
2. "do we believe Milton will think and speak along an obsolete or
an up to date reality framework?".<br>
3. more seriously: "is the US/WEF scheme credible in the middle
range?"<br>
<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
NB. WEF/Davos:<br><br>
- Wikipedia: "The foundation is funded by its 1,000 member
companies, typically global enterprises with more than five billion
dollars in turnover (varying by industry and region). These enterprises
rank among the top companies within their industry and/or country and
play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and/or
region").<br><br>
- In our internet world we know them as the US GAFAM+: they are the
leaders of RFC 6852 business "global communities" accumulating
the RFC 6852 "huge bounty".<br><br>
</body>
</html>