[governance] RE: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation

Thu Jan 9 13:56:48 EST 2014

Thanks for your kind edits and worrying about your fellow countrymen.

It seems like many non Americans readers were not lost nor confuse on my Department of Business labeling. In courtesy to the American readers in the list, I will make the effort to use the accurate labels and present my sincere apologies for the inaccurate labels. Of course, I wonder if I would as kind in correcting you labeling inaccurately any Indian, French, German, Hungarian ministries label.  But let's stay in our asymmetric world.

Regarding the NSA employee, I didn't answer as someone did it for me in the list. But, unless such famous IG experts of your trempe do not follow the lasting and revolting NSA affair, I am pretty sure that everyone understood what I referred to. Not you? Were you confused? Again, very sorry to learn about that. Do you need pointers?

Should I also apologize for asking you one question: why don't you react on other informations, thoughts, questions, issues, facts that me and others brought to the attention of the lists? Specially since you are a participant in the 1net , and de facto bringing your credibility to it. The discussion is currently rolling on this ghosty truc, and, as others, I tried to figure out if I was dreaming or not when observing what's going on with the ICANN/Brazil conference. Or do you feel so badly that the United States Department of Commerce, and other acronyms needed a Professor of your standing to come to their rescue. Considering the number of off-the list emails thanking me for my  last posts here, may I admit some disappointment.

I would rather hear more of you on your book The Global Politics of Internet Governance, and its last 18-page chapter 'Ideologies and Visions'. You proclaim that "Cyber-libertarinism is not dead." "For it was never really born." You describe it more as a prophetic vision. (Ahhh Prophets and Talibans!!) and you push a "denationalized liberalism" as the perfect concept for getting the invisible hand and the common good reunited in a dramatic marriage of complementarities (commons and property). Well, well, well. This is something that I hope the 1net and other venues will soon debate, if we first come to agreement on the list of what is commons and what is property. We should make sure that Google is in the room by then. The EU and Google, India and Google, France and Google have very opposite views on what is what between commons and property. So do I. I am sure once we have set these lists, our debate will come to an easy and unexpected conclusion. It would also be nice by the same token to look at revenues and budget. Comparing the USD 284 millions of ICANN's forecasted 2014 budget (vs 233 millions in 2013), and the tiny budget of IGF. Look at the money ICANN will spend to take the lead over the Internet governance debate thaks to the revenues of the new gTLD business (sorry Commerce). It already seems like the invisible hand has done its work, as 1net will receive at least 4 or 5 what IGF gets. For a non-existing entity if we understand John Curran correctly, this is quite an achievement. Very much a good "denationalized liberalism" example. No?

Another interesting topic of discussion would be the neo-conservative view of a potential (and inevitable) balkanization of Internet. Do you have anything on that?

But maybe these are less relevant issues compare to Department of Commerce proper labeling...

Sorry for being ironic but the situation deserves a bit of humor.

I am expecting more from someone like you - I am still reading your final chapter!! Every one should (no irony here).

JC

PS:
About IETF, the best I can do is to direct you to its website
http://www.ietf.org/
But maybe you were concerned about my "IETF board" (well, it might just be a shortcut to mention the area Directors, or ADs, members of the Internet Engineering Steering Group, under the oversight of IAB, etc, etc.....). 

__________________________

Jean-Christophe Nothias 
Editor in Chief
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
@jc_nothias

Le 9 janv. 2014 à 16:19, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

> Jean-Christophe:
> You are confusing people by using inaccurate labels.
>  
> There is no “Department of Trade” in the US, there is a Department of Commerce, and although translating “Commerce” into French may be the same general meaning as “Trade,” American readers will get confused if you switch the terms.
>  
> Same accuracy problem with your reference to the IETF Board. I do not know what the IETF Board is, do you mean the IAB? Or the ISOC Board of Trustees? What is the name of the NSA employee you are referring to?
>  
>  
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:50 PM
> To: Shatan, Gregory S.
> Cc: &lt, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt, ; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation
>  
> ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board.
> 
> 
>  
> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:43, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit :
> 
> 
> I’m confused.  What “grouping” are you stating is under a “direct mandate” of the “US trade department”?
>  
> Greg Shatan
>  
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:15 PM
> To: John Curran
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt, ; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation
>  
> John,
>  
> My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny.
>  
> Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing.
>  
> JC
>  
> __________________________
> 
> Jean-Christophe Nothias 
> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> @jc_nothias
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 19:08, John Curran a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> ...
> It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. 
>  
> Jean-Christophe - 
>  
> Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past have been 
> generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see fit, e.g. - 
>  
> From <http://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2011/iab-minutes-2011-11-30/>
> 6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting
> 
> Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-30 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments and the IANA RFP.
>  
> From: <http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/nro-at-apnic-33.pdf>
> • NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Florida – Hosted by ARIN
> – Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s 
> – Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IETF (I*) Executives
>  
> etc.
>  
> Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the various Internet organizations
> have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together than via many one-on-one meetings.
> Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in press releases) but information about
> their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certainly in the public as noted above,
> and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation.
>  
> FYI,
> /John
>  
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> * * *
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> * * *
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140109/24309ffc/attachment.htm>