<html>
<body>
Thanks Carlos to share in this list the statement of J. Malcolm.<br><br>
As an early follower and today member and ally of JNC and its plan to
launch an ISF I have read with attention this document, especially
because you qualified it as "excellent".<br>
I appreciate the time the author has invested in putting together the
document and the huge effort to maintain a neutral tone...which, as I
will show, has been struggling and loosing againts a deep rage he cannot
hide. Why facing different vision provokes that much rage is hard to
understand to me... Why Carlos Afonso find excellence here does surprise
me.<br><br>
Maybe my reading is not enough objective but I read basically 2 strong
arguments against the action plan of JNC for an ISF:<br><br>
1) The first argument is that "<i>We in JNC are clear partisan of
governments taking charge of the governance of the
Internet</i>."<br>
The very axiom of all the the demonstration is just not true so
unfortunalely all the derived theorems are wrong.<br>
The critic of today multistakeholderism is not synonym of allegance to
traditional governmental form of democracy... or imagination has become
so limited in civil society?<br>
The arguing that JNC pretend to use standard democratic repreasentation
and member states competent international organisations is nothing but an
oversimplification which is not prone to good dialog and somehow is part
of the second argument.<br><br>
2) The second argument is the demonization of the players of
JNC.<br><br>
Let me just list the various qualificatives spead over the rationale to
make my point:<br><br>
- <i>profoundly dysfunctional </i>(engagement with civil society)<br>
- (the people of JNC has) <i>frequently threatened to tear that
group apart<br>
</i>- a prominent JNC member almost<i> came to blows with a female
attendee</i> (this for Parminder)<br>
-<i> the toxic relationship </i>that its representatives have cultivated
with the rest of civil society.<br>
- <i>to disrupt ... by hectoring, intimidating and disparaging
participants</i> who expressed pro-multistakeholder views.<br>
- this<i> is a farcical insult </i>(refer to Gurstein's)<br>
- the <i>disruptive behaviour of </i>JNC<br>
- these demands were delivered with <i>such hubris and entitlement
</i>that the effect has been to isolate JNC from other civil society
groups and networks and <i>to sow seeds of discord<br>
that will have lasting effects</i> - <i>JNC betrayed that
trust</i>... (this is for Norbert)<br>
- <i>This is a shame<br>
</i>- preferring to focus <i>its destructive anger </i>on easier,weaker
targets its own civil society colleagues.<br><br>
This seems to me to be a replay of a good spaghetti western with JNC in
the role of the ugly, IGF in the role of the bad and BetBits in the role
of the Good.<br>
I prefer Sergio Leone version :-) and I have a hard time to understand
why a profound difference of vision inside civil society should be
treated as a pathologic deviance as would homosexuality be treated in
some very conservative countries...<br><br>
To conclude, I am myself a "<i>white man</i>" born in a
developing country, with a nationality of an industrialized country who
lived in a developing country... but who cares beyond Mr. Malcolm
(X :-)?) <br>
and what sort of argument is that to designate MM. Pouzin and Nothias?
<br><br>
Daniel Pimienta<br><br>
PD: There is a simple way to determine if, as M. Malcolm pretends, his
views on the Ugly part of this community are shared by the majority: this
is a survey on the list with the appropriate questions, a device that
virtual community managers use when conflictive situation occurs. I do
suggest to the convenors of this list to think seriously about it so
nobody can pretend talking on the name of the rest of us without factual
support.<br>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body>
</html>