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

[parminder]

I remember reading somewhere that ICANN has a board decision/ document 
about the logic of the lead up to the Brazil meeting but that was kept 
secret.... Is it out now... Or is it purely my imagination, in which 
case my apologies.. parminder

On Wednesday 08 January 2014 08:37 PM, Louis Pouzin wrote:
> Superb, and true.
> Louis
> - - -
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global 
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net 
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>     Indeed, indeed, Parminder!
>
>
>     The 1net idea was brought to a I-stars meeting after the NSA
>     scandal and the 'trust' crisis/issue over the current asymmetric
>     domination. 1net is an ICANN idea and since then has been pushed
>     by ICANN. 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. "We didn't want to attract attention!! apologized the 11
>     CEOs part of the I-stars, all them putting their signature at the
>     bottom line of the Montevideo statement ( in reaction to the
>     crisis!). They survived WCIT but not Snowden.
>
>     Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO in 2013, admitted in a recorded meeting
>     during last ICANN 48 that she and other I-stars CEOs were first
>     reluctant to the 1net idea. Would 1net be a competitor to ISOC and
>     its chapters if you only think of ISOC's view of 1net? Other
>     reasons were discussed.
>
>     It is crystal clear to any political advisor with some experience
>     that 1net is a political extravaganza set to bring some sort of
>     legitimacy to ICANN and its plan to bake an international dressing
>     and menu, in order to keep as much as possible the asymmetry
>     acceptable. It is also a bright move to try to bring back as many
>     civil society voices under a I-stars overview/control. But some
>     elements of the international civil society are not governable
>     from the US, (when they exist and wherever they are located). 1net
>     has also a dilution effect over the IGF, which is still a UN
>     'thing'. 1net would take away from the IGF some of its relevance -
>     even though one can admit that the IGF was stalling. The bestbit,
>     the 1net, the High Level Panel by the ICANN... all of that
>     converge to take the IGF down to a not-able venue - We the French
>     have made a word with the not-able, /les notables/, the ones
>     having the impression that they are the important guys around. No
>     one better than a /notable/ can keep a status quo safe. /Notables/
>     are usually conservatives (of their status and advantages) by
>     nature. A little bit like the I-stars and their /aficionados/.
>
>     ISOC could have been the natural 1net but is too much of a US
>     entity, even though it has offices around the world. The 1net idea
>     is to shift civil society and other Internet actors under an ICANN
>     umbrella, an umbrella being revamped as some sort of International
>     organization (IO). Even though it would be a fake IO, this new
>     ICANN would be an embarrassment to any initiative coming from or
>     endorsed by a multilateral, or international law related, oriented
>     body.
>
>     The I-stars are defending themselves from trying to lower the IGF
>     capacity. They have recently stated that, indeed, IGF deserves
>     more funds, and that the I-stars should think about  giving to the
>     IGF. This UN-WSIS venue is today functioning with a miserable
>     budget, even in comparison to the ICANN communication budget, or
>     the ISOC large revenues thank to PIR and its selling of domains
>     with .net, .org.... With such a poor financial condition, the IGF
>     has to turn to sometime evil government willing to show some good
>     face on the occasion by hosting the IGF meeting. Azerbaijan and
>     others have been financially correct and grata. After all, isn't
>     it fair to associate the UN with rogue states looking for friends.
>     And make sure that everyone confuses the UN with them.
>
>     Nothing could be more effective than providing notables with some
>     more $ as they enjoy could table, and days of peace in remote
>     location whether in California, Bali or Argentina to meet, discuss
>     and blunder. We all remember that a few notables agreed to be paid
>     for their personal views over IG when attending the London High
>     level panel meeting set by the ICANN few weeks ago. What was the
>     budget on this one? 50 guests... Maybe the IGF would be happy to
>     get this money to investigate more about the financial practice
>     over inter-connected networks and data carriers, providers and
>     miners. Or launch an honest survey of ideas to improve IG practice.
>
>     So, will the ICANN-1net plan work out? Will it be said: "/Tout va
>     bien madame la marquise/"?
>
>     It is not hard to imagine that this will bring legitimate
>     reactions from many 'stakeholders'. Outside of 1net. Outside of
>     ICANN et al.
>
>     Brazil might already have lost its 'time'. Brazil and others.
>
>     Enough will soon be enough
>
>     JC
>
>
>     __________________________
>
>     Jean-Christophe Nothias
>     jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>     @jc_nothias
>
>
>
>     Le 8 janv. 2014 à 13:26, parminder a écrit :
>
>>
>>     On Wednesday 08 January 2014 05:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>>     On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well)
>>>     <pouzin at well.com <mailto:pouzin at well.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The
>>>         meeting was between LOG and ICANN.
>>>
>>>     Hmm....i think that may need to be reworded Louis as i don't
>>>     think 1NET=ICANN  but my understanding is that 1NET=Various
>>>     Stakeholders (including ICANN). So i expect the meeting was
>>>     between LOG and 1NET
>>
>>     I remember John Curran, who was at the Monte Video meeting where
>>     1Net idea arose, saying quite recently on this list something to
>>     the effect that 1Net is yet just an e- discussion space, and it
>>     can become what its steering committee (which hasnt met yet) may
>>     want it to become...
>>
>>     I havent seen simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and
>>     co-shape global meetings. Have you? Does it not appear strange.
>>     And for getting such an invitation to come into the centre of
>>     Brazil meeting hosting space, one has to really push hard, and
>>     have a lot of power. (I know also because some well established
>>     civil society groups tried - together - to enter this 'hosting
>>     space' and got no response.).. These are power games... 1Net
>>     itself is hardly in a position to do the pushing... So whoever
>>     has the power and is using it to come to the centre of Brazil
>>     meeting hosting space is 1Net at the moment. Follows logically,
>>     whether we like it or not.
>>
>>     parminder
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140108/8edc37c7/attachment.htm>