[governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Oct 13 02:43:50 EDT 2013
Dear Anja
On Sunday 13 October 2013 11:22 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Thanks for laying out in such detail how you see this debate. This is
> very helpful to better understand your position.
>
> It also helps me to clarify the Internet Democracy Project position,
> as we find ourselves in neither of the two groups you describe. We do
> believe that the current unequal distribution of power in global
> Internet governance is a major problem and that the proposed meeting
> is a significant step in efforts to address this. We also believe,
> however, that the solution to this problem does not only lie in an
> equal and just redistribution among states, but also, and crucially,
> in the strengthening of civil society participation. Achieving this
> will not be reached by simply demanding the possibility of civil
> society participation again and again. We believe it is far more
> forceful to start participating already by making concrete proposals.
I can understand that you are not convinced by the logic, but the above
is not a very accurate description of our intention or strategy. Calling
for (1) a central role at this point in shaping the emerging initiative,
is at a completely different level from (2) making concrete proposals.
They are clearly two different things. And you know IT for Change have
never shied away from making concrete proposals, including in the
recent discussions here on this list after the Montevideo statement, but
did not find many participants who want concrete proposals now jumping
into that discussion and seeking concrete outcomes/ proposals. How much
faith all of us have to entirely put into that few hours that some civil
society members would be in that small closed room of the Bali BestBits
meeting!
Coming back to putting in the stake for, in the best scenario, being a
kind of an organising partner - I see this as very very different from
making concrete proposals to that process. I cant see how these two very
different things - though with a common intention - can be essentially
conflated. Indeed I can see a lot of sense in that when we initially
seek partnership in shaping an initiative, we dont also throw in all
our concrete proposals into that same demand...... I dont consider it
strategic at all, unless of course we have a strong basic ab initio
distrust of the concerned process/ initiative .
>
> It is for this reason (and because we believe letters in short
> succession do not add value, especially if they have nothing
> substantially new to add)
Not true. This letter has little to do with the earlier letter that we
sent after Rousseff's UN speech. This letter specifically welcomes an
initiative that has taken the global IG world by a good amount of
surprise, and further specifically seeks a partnership role for civil
society going forward with this initiative. How can you say this letter
has nothing new to add?
> that we proposed to wait until the Best Bits meeting next weekend.
IGC is IGC and BestBits is BestBits. I dont think it is proper to put
one process hostage to another, or to put any hierarchy ... BTW, there
may not be a good basis to suppose that IGC would necessarily sign a
statement just becuase those who gather for that meeting in Bali agree
to it. In any case, if concrete proposals are involved, why cant we
start on them here, in this space..... Lets at least see what kind of
proposals are we talking about here. As I said, arent we putting some
extra ordinary trust and expectation on these few hours in Bali.
best
parminder
> This may be a different perspective than yours, but it certainly isn't
> any less legitimate or valid in its commitment to a more just system
> of global Internet governance or an information society for all.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 12 October 2013 12:01, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> Rafik
>
> I did argue the potential benefits at length. At the same time,
> logic of cautious wait may also appears as sound. Finally, it is
> ones politics - and the extent of ones disenchantment with the
> status quo of power in global IG. As for those who are rather
> disenchanted, this is a major potential opening for a disruptive
> impact, something that has come after a long time, due to certain
> historical matching of political configurations - a prime element
> of which is the near universal global outrage following Snowden
> revelations. And such openings dont come everyday. To those, like
> for instance us, for whom there is major issue today about who has
> power and who hasnt in global IG, and is marginalised, it is
> difficult to let go such a prime opportunity without making the
> best attempt to leverage it. That is the simple fact here.
>
> To others, there may be less threat in status quo and more in the
> possible/ likely new configurations. Well, that is how it is
> then... But we should understand and acknowledge the politics that
> lies behind it.. It is not some simple technical difference of
> appreciating whether entrepreneurial political opportunism is
> better or conservative caution is more well-advised. Well,
> consensus-ism often does get used to safeguard the status quo.
>
> If anybody is in fact ready to convey the statement to Rousseff,
> our organisation's intention is still to go ahead with it.
> Hopefully IGC would sign it, but if not, those who want to send it
> can do so.
>
> Co-coordinators: Is is time to check rough consensus on the
> shorter version or not yet?
>
> parminder
>
> On Saturday 12 October 2013 10:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> Firstly, we can take the usual time for seeking consensus.
>> Just not postpone to another time... Secondly, I have not
>> clearly heard, or any rate understood, the concerns.
>>
>> well I think that some people like Anriette , Anja , already
>> expressed scepticism and asked at least to have the discuss in
>> Bali and so waiting before sending the letter . I also didn't get
>> till now what is the concrete outcome of sending the letter
>>
>> Lets be clear what we are doing at present - Just welcoming
>> an initiative that by all means looks like a serious outcome
>> oriented or at least outcome seeking one, and saying that we
>> want to be there right away driving it along with others....
>> What is wrong with it. The potential benefit is clear - we
>> try to get a bit tri - lateral about this initiative.... Any
>> other time will be too late.... And as I said I dont see the
>> downside....
>>
>>
>> for me it seems more interpretation or wishes of we may want to
>> happen instead of having clear proofs or indications or benefits.
>> and honestly I don't buy those arguments that we should hurry
>> and don't miss the opportunity .any action we will take we have
>> to bare the consequence later.
>>
>>
>>> I want to be sure if I got you message correctly.
>>> I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am
>>> still not convinced and I want to highlight that any action
>>> we take, will have impact soon or later and can backfire.
>>> I don't think that you would disagree with more strategical
>>> approach.
>>
>> You are just making a general statement that caution and
>> foresight is good - and with such a statement who can
>> disagree.... But here I havent been told the risk - and
>> beyond a point, just about any political act carries risk.
>>
>>
>> I saw people talking about being opportunistic and pragmatic,well
>> I will take the cynical standpoint and remind that we are dealing
>> with politicians(even for the ICANN CEO), they will of course
>> welcome any letter support and like it. but what what will happen
>> if we found the initiative is going in totally different
>> direction? are we going to send another letter?
>> do you really think they will care about it? probably no and
>> maybe they will keep referring to the first letter because it
>> support them and their narrative.
>> why not investigating first and getting more details about what
>> they have in mind before hurrying?
>> should we jump there because one public statement?how can we make
>> strategical decision with such few details?
>> idem for people talking about benefit and opportunity to be part
>> of the initiative but didn't give any clarification how that will
>> happen. kind of shot first and then wait and see?
>>
>> anyway, I expressed my concern about sending letter to support
>> initiative yet to be defined, that we don't have so much details
>> about and without consensus on strategy that we have follow.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> Regards, parminder
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2013/10/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>>
>>> It is here
>>>
>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014
>>>
>>> Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an
>>> ominbus document of demands. At this stage we need a
>>> clear, crisp and strong letter, of a few sentences, that
>>> Brazilian President or some top guy would actually read,
>>> and not get confusing messages. I am not saying we
>>> should not say whatever we definitively want to say -
>>> but be clear and short, that is all.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>>
>>>> sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are
>>>> developing here? can you please clarify?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/10/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is
>>>> strategically of essense, some of us would keep
>>>> working on a posible text over today and try to
>>>> present something to IGC and BB by the end of the
>>>> day.... We do very much hope IGC and BB can sign on
>>>> it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would open
>>>> it to organisations and people who want to sign it
>>>> (sorry, this is a practice I normally do not like
>>>> so much, but I dont think it is ok that we can
>>>> produce a statement to critique a UN process is
>>>> just no time, with all kind of ambiguous languages,
>>>> and on such an important - potential game changer -
>>>> initiative from a developing country, a paralysis
>>>> seems to be setting in)...
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is
>>>>> /a tide/ in the /affairs of men/. Which, taken at
>>>>> the flood, leads on to fortune"...
>>>>>
>>>>> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have
>>>>> to seize it.... President Rousseff was made, what
>>>>> would have perhaps been, somewhat a regular kind
>>>>> of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even
>>>>> announced the like month etc.. That is what gave
>>>>> it such a sudden high prominence, and people are
>>>>> celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays
>>>>> its cards well, Brazil have now got an edge....
>>>>> which it can use to further its interest...
>>>>>
>>>>> Civil society also is supposed to be representing
>>>>> some interests - real interests of real people,
>>>>> who are most marginalised, and we have to take our
>>>>> own responsibility seriously . We cannot be
>>>>> eternally paralysed, which hurts these interests.
>>>>> If there are real differences of views, well, that
>>>>> counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch
>>>>> attitude would do us no good...
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks
>>>>> we run and what gains we can make... And others
>>>>> must also contribute what they think are risks or
>>>>> advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet,
>>>>> tells talk more, do face to face and all,,,, Such
>>>>> stuff I think, just my own view, is not the
>>>>> appropriate response.
>>>>>
>>>>> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's
>>>>> behalf tries to cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps
>>>>> in anticipation of the new proposal for
>>>>> democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil
>>>>> will soon present - BTW, the day of the annual
>>>>> discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is
>>>>> 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real
>>>>> dialogue to see what needs to be changed about the
>>>>> global governance of the Internet. Rousseff
>>>>> immediately seizes the initiative, and even
>>>>> declares a possible timeline, just like that,
>>>>> off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is
>>>>> all that has happened, and that is all anyone
>>>>> knows has happened. There is nothing hidden that
>>>>> civil society may suddenly become complicit to if
>>>>> they support this proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> In supporting it, we would only be saying -
>>>>> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what
>>>>> needs to change in global governance of the
>>>>> Internet should take place with some urgency,
>>>>> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open
>>>>> and not a hidden manner,
>>>>> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the
>>>>> initiative comes from one of the key developing
>>>>> nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' -
>>>>> and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the
>>>>> main symbol and defender of status quo,and that
>>>>> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in
>>>>> the middle of all action, as the dialogue shapes
>>>>> and takes place...
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything
>>>>> sinister about the proposed meeting surfaces at
>>>>> any later time we can as publicly withdraw our
>>>>> support, saying this is not at all what we
>>>>> bargained for)
>>>>>
>>>>> So either people here agree to the above, and we
>>>>> can write a statement, or they dont... This is the
>>>>> time to do the statement, when people are still
>>>>> wondering what kind of initiative it really is,
>>>>> and with what implications. Throw in our hat - and
>>>>> well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral
>>>>> from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN
>>>>> tech community) We may not succeed, but we must
>>>>> try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would
>>>>> already be too solidified in fact, or in people's
>>>>> mind for civil society support to have this kind
>>>>> of impact....
>>>>>
>>>>> Parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>>>> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more
>>>>>> information emerges. We can draft a letter which
>>>>>> is more meaningful when we have a better idea of
>>>>>> the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely
>>>>>> attendees, and possible processes for the
>>>>>> conference. It’s quite likely more information
>>>>>> will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I
>>>>>> think we should discuss at Bali and before then
>>>>>> try to find out a little more.
>>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>>> *From:* Deborah Brown <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM
>>>>>> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits]
>>>>>> Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event
>>>>>> on Internet governance in 2014
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> I see the advantage of engaging early on this,
>>>>>> but I'm a bit concerned that we are rushing
>>>>>> unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of
>>>>>> us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I
>>>>>> wonder if it might make more sense to continue
>>>>>> this discussion online and take advantage of the
>>>>>> in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us
>>>>>> attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as
>>>>>> others have pointed out, we know so little about
>>>>>> the initiative at this point.
>>>>>> The draft text (available here:
>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not
>>>>>> seem to capture the cautious optimism that a
>>>>>> number of people have expressed. I also have
>>>>>> concerns about providing our "strongest
>>>>>> endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when
>>>>>> that process is not yet complete. Of course the
>>>>>> text of the letter could change dramatically in
>>>>>> just a few hours ;)
>>>>>> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does
>>>>>> imply a follow on communication with more
>>>>>> concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more
>>>>>> effective to streamline our communication to the
>>>>>> Brazilian president and head of ICANN.
>>>>>> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both
>>>>>> "striking while the iron is hot" and a more
>>>>>> cautious approach. But given the factors I
>>>>>> mentioned above, I would support taking some
>>>>>> extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm
>>>>>> looking forward to hearing others' ideas and
>>>>>> continuing the discussion around this important
>>>>>> development.
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Deborah
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
>>>>>> <nnenna75 at gmail.com <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. I do believe that if any support there
>>>>>> is, from the civil society, it is support
>>>>>> for an IDEA that "appears" more open and
>>>>>> inclusive that the current IGF
>>>>>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter
>>>>>> that may be in any way understood as
>>>>>> "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's
>>>>>> push".
>>>>>> 3. A short letter informing that global
>>>>>> Civil Society that are working on,
>>>>>> concerned about and/or interested in IG
>>>>>> and Internet issues intend to play key
>>>>>> roles in the summit.
>>>>>> 4. I believe we should communicate key
>>>>>> values we plan to pursue in the summit
>>>>>> 5. Underline the central idea of
>>>>>> multistakeholder participation
>>>>>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions
>>>>>> about the diverse roles that CS can play
>>>>>> and that some time in Bali will be
>>>>>> dedicated to the issue during the BB
>>>>>> meeting in Bali.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be
>>>>>> discussing the MS Selection processes, and I
>>>>>> do hope, personally that we can use that
>>>>>> opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder
>>>>>> of the WS is on
>>>>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but
>>>>>> will be back online and I'm happy to
>>>>>> contribute language if any text begins to
>>>>>> surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is
>>>>>> supporting, which is the idea, and not
>>>>>> the institutions
>>>>>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness
>>>>>> to engage
>>>>>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on
>>>>>> the Multistakeholder principle
>>>>>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and
>>>>>> are ongoing
>>>>>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore
>>>>>> concrete engagement proposals
>>>>>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if
>>>>>> available, to help us scope the idea itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nnenna
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon
>>>>>> <joana at varonferraz.com
>>>>>> <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear people,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the level of information I have
>>>>>> (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN
>>>>>> have proposed to host a Summit on
>>>>>> Internet after April - coincidentally or
>>>>>> right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik
>>>>>> and before the presidential elections
>>>>>> period), I don't feel comfortable about
>>>>>> writing a letter congratulating for
>>>>>> something I dont really know what it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion
>>>>>> to start working on our agenda online
>>>>>> and, with a potential to be much richer,
>>>>>> during our several meetings in Bali.
>>>>>> (what do we want from all this besides
>>>>>> participating in the Summit??)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to
>>>>>> understand and discuss this with the
>>>>>> Brazilian government and Brazilian
>>>>>> colleagues from civil society or other
>>>>>> sectors. And see what is the final draft
>>>>>> of Marco Civil that the government will
>>>>>> bring to our table very soon (if it truly
>>>>>> endorses all the principles she has
>>>>>> mentioned at the UNGA).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or
>>>>>> over cautious position, but I really need
>>>>>> more inputs to see the big picture.
>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>
>>>>>> joana
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael
>>>>>> gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From:
>>>>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM
>>>>>> To: McTim
>>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>>>>>> michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik
>>>>>> Dammak; Joana Varon;
>>>>>> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,;
>>>>>> NCSG List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE:
>>>>>> [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> host world event on Internet
>>>>>> governance in 2014
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear compa McT,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe
>>>>>> you will not change your logical view...
>>>>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of
>>>>>> people in all sectors who feel
>>>>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of
>>>>>> Brazil and its concrete proposals to
>>>>>> finally move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes
>>>>>> the motivation -- Rousseff's statement
>>>>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the
>>>>>> basic principles most of civil society
>>>>>> defends (which she has repeated
>>>>>> several times in her radio program
>>>>>> and her
>>>>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal
>>>>>> to build a planetary framework of
>>>>>> rights. This did not come out of the
>>>>>> blue, from a meeting of IP addressers
>>>>>> in a wonderful city called
>>>>>> Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just
>>>>>> dropped by the
>>>>>> presidential door in Brasilia,
>>>>>> knocked and entered to sell that
>>>>>> proposal? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand
>>>>>> that this is not a proposal for yet
>>>>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition
>>>>>> of the UN chatting space called IGF,
>>>>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very
>>>>>> clear. It is a major achievement that
>>>>>> that motivation brought Icann to
>>>>>> colead this effort jointly with BR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the more so because, as you know,
>>>>>> there are strong sectors within the
>>>>>> government who would love to bring
>>>>>> the root-zone to the purview of the ITU,
>>>>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the
>>>>>> pluriparticipative model of governance
>>>>>> we defend, and who are basically
>>>>>> associated with the transnational telecom
>>>>>> oligopoly which controls the main
>>>>>> networks in BR.
>>>>>> Dilma is courageously up against a
>>>>>> huge wall here, to defend those
>>>>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and
>>>>>> emerging from the meeting with thar
>>>>>> proposal was a major political
>>>>>> milestone for her in those internal
>>>>>> disputes
>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [] fraterno
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says:
>>>>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff
>>>>>> has accepted our invitation that we
>>>>>> > hold next year a Global Summit"
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Seem fairly clear to me.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM,
>>>>>> Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
>>>>>> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the
>>>>>> video a few times more... :)
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> --c.a.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM,
>>>>>> michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical
>>>>>> everyone.. I may be wrong but this
>>>>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although
>>>>>> hats off to Fadi for getting this
>>>>>> >>>> going and putting that into play.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> But I would be extremely
>>>>>> surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going
>>>>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in
>>>>>> April next year to discuss names and
>>>>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is
>>>>>> that she is by-passing the quite
>>>>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the
>>>>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now
>>>>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom"
>>>>>> crusade and the status quo which it
>>>>>> >>>> was intended to cast into
>>>>>> concrete errr. (non) rules and regs.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching
>>>>>> the video again several times that
>>>>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the
>>>>>> rest of the Montevideoans) that are
>>>>>> >>> spearheading this. In other
>>>>>> words the idea of the Summit comes from
>>>>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>>> @joana_varon
>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Deborah Brown
>>>>>> Senior Policy Analyst
>>>>>> Access | accessnow.org <http://accessnow.org>
>>>>>> rightscon.org <http://rightscon.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @deblebrown
>>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto: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
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131013/c82c79d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list