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

[John Curran]

On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:05 PM, JCN Global <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> Le 28 janv. 2014 à 02:58, John Curran a écrit :
>> Actually, we don't have any solutions... one would hope that we can collaborate 
>> on mutually acceptable solutions on this 1net discuss mailing list.
> 1net has no legitimacy at all (which one has it, apart from being funded by ICANN? Do you think that ICANN should have put a little bit more money into the IGF? Even Saint Amour back in December said the I* needed to give funding to the IGF - to calm it maybe?. 

Legitimacy for what purpose?  1net is a perfectly legitimate discussion forum;
one suitable for working on problems and solutions, and it can be one of many
such forums.

The value of a solution is in the merit of its arguments, not based on number or
flavor of endorsements;  if you seek a forum where the solutions are evaluated
based on political support or representation, I'd look elsewhere.
 
> I would disagree with both Michel and you over the fact that there are no alternative. There are other options. At least I can see two of them. You will be informed soon enough, and the dialogue might start again, but not under a strict control and ruling by the I* and their Asymmetrics priests whether Cerf, Pisanty or any other.

Excellent... I look forward to reading your proposals, when and whereever they may 
appear.   If there is value in them, perhaps they will gain support. 

> But again, as I wrote in my post it is really difficult to collaborate with a group of people refusing to have common definitions, refusing to acknowledge that the game has been biased for sometime. It seems like there is no honest desire to come a neutral table for a discussion to deliver something else than what the I* and Asymmetrics are expecting.

Actually, I would welcome common definitions... please suggest some either as a baseline
or as part of the draft problem statement that George proposed.

> A no-concession approach in diplomacy drives no where, and ruins the last drop of trust.

"Approach to diplomacy"?   This posting must have been intended for some list other than
the discuss at 1net.org list, as this discuss list is about working on problems and solutions,
not negotiation, posturing, or diplomacy. 

>>> Why not to start with a few information on the /1net site, explaining the meaning of the words you use.
>> 
>> Excellent idea; I believe that is a very good step in problem solving and hopefully can 
>> be done as either as general terms of reference or in individual problem statements as
>> they are developed.
> 
> As soon as we enter your 'game', you get your smile back! Interesting. In Michel suggestion, I do understand that he does not understand clearly what is 1net about? A problem for anyone to feel confident to enter that arena.  BUt if we accept and say : "Let's go and seat on an equal footing basis to a 1net table…" then we might see how ready and open you are to find a new IG model. Haven't you the impression that we have seen enough sterile thinking from the Asymmetrics. Think of Pisanty and his radicalism. He is at war, and you understand it, right? 1net is another fluffy bizzarerie, among many others the Asymmetrics have invented to keep the imbalance in place.  

If you believe such, then feel free not to participate and/or work in another forum (and if 
you send me an invite, I might even join in that discussion if I can meaningfully contribute)

>> Designing the Internet?  The Internet is the result of many Internet service providers
>> all collaborating to provide services which together have more value than apart... I am 
>> uncertain what aspects of "designing the Internet" you feel should be part of Internet 
>> governance - if you wish to design Internet services, you should become an Internet 
>> service provider and/or participate in the IETF protocol development work.
>  A bit surprise to read this. Architecture of Internet? You need help on this? Not you! Designing the Internet is clear to many, and to you as well. To keep ONE Internet has a direct impact on business and surveillance. Both are fully related to the designing of Internet. See previous emails in the lists.
> 
> Again, and again, the way you answer to these emails show (and we might sound more or less the same to you) that you are reluctant to envisage a completely different setting. Going after the middle countries - the stupid ones who didn't know what to think of Internet Governance back in Dubai, is a way of thinking that sounds a bit awkward to me, specially from someone like Chehadé. Germany, Turkey… and others would be middle countries, that could easily be pushed into a pro MS asymmetric game, well, well, that is to be seen.

If that is your desire, then go forth. I actually have no desire to "push" anyone (particularly
not countries) into any particularly direction.   I (and many others on this list) _do_ want to 
try to further explore some of the current challenges in Internet governance.

> BY the way, in my first email regarding the present conversation, I spotted at least one concrete idea. It seems again, that you were not able to pick it up. Too bad you seems to be blind to alternative.

Wonderful.  Perhaps once we have a problem statement, you would be so kind as to restate 
your proposed solution/alternative and the reasoning supporting it?

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140128/bfa1cd05/attachment.htm>