[governance] Fwd: [cs-coord] Civil Society Speakers for IGF Closing Ceremony

[Jefsey]

At 13:47 27/08/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

>Whether you trust milton or not is a rather separate issue, surely?

I am sorry, but I do not understand your question.
jfc



>On 27 August 2014 5:09:56 pm Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>>At 11:31 27/08/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>>A centre generally does exclude extreme opinions on either side of 
>>>the political spectrum
>>>Feel free to list them, but if you wish to proceed further than 
>>>just a laundry list of statements, then working toward consensus - 
>>>across stakeholder groups - becomes inevitable.
>>
>>Trimmed for commercial community pads receivers and to stay as 
>>non-partisan as possible.
>>
>>Suresh,
>>
>>We confuse the usual consensus/compromise issue. We disagree on 
>>compromise: therefore the consensus can only be a multi-consensus. 
>>It means that we have consensually described and report our lack of 
>>consensus, which the sub-consensus are, and the way for the various 
>>identified sub-consensual communities interelate.
>>
>>The question is: "do we trust Milton to present this 
>>multi-consensus, or do we fear he introduces his own vision of a compromise?"
>>The issue is: "what is to be enhanced cooperation within the 
>>Internet Governance?".
>>
>>The IGF is the Internet Governance Forum, for Govs, Corps, 
>>International Orgs and CS to concert about the Internet and develop 
>>enhanced cooperations supported by dynamic coalitions. The task of 
>>understanding what is enhanced cooperation was to be worked on 
>>through the IGF.
>>
>>This has been done:
>>
>>- most of the CS (most people on this list) and Govs have worked 
>>along an intellectual/legal point approach of the Governance.
>>
>>- for two years last week, those (including CS people like me) who 
>>have worked from a pragmatic evaluation of the Internet have
>>   - come to a paradigmatic/consensual understanding,
>>   - published it,
>>   - and acted upon it.
>>
>>   - I questionned that understanding (IETF appeal) because it 
>> could be out of tune with the CS and Govs (WCIT) majority approaches.
>>
>>   - However, while I was reaching the ultimate layer (ISOC 
>> appeal), the NTIA preempted their response in bridging their 
>> minority (WCIT) Government position both with the technical 
>> community consensus, and with the common thinking of the industry 
>> incumbents (which geographically fall under US legal jurisdiction).
>>
>>The question becomes: "do we think Milton will think and speak 
>>along an obsolete or an up to date reality framework?".
>>
>>Depending on the case Milton will either sound as:
>>- out of tune with all those who have accepted it (we are talking 
>>about their "huge bounty").
>>- or able to correct the probably suicidal money centric creep and 
>>lead it back to its people centered assignement.
>>
>>
>>For the time being "Enhanced cooperation" has therefore been:
>>
>>- defined:  at the normative layer
>>   by the OpenStand (RFC 6852) Affirmation,
>>
>>- approved: at the strategic layer
>>   by the Montevideo Statement,
>>
>>- enacted: at the political layer
>>   by SaoPaulo's NetMundial
>>
>>- now pursued: at global governance layer
>>   by its economical WEF planned mentors.
>>
>>The eventual questions therefore are:
>>
>>1. "do we trust Milton to present this multi-consensus, or do we 
>>fear he introduces his own vision of a compromise?"
>>2. "do we believe Milton will think and speak along an obsolete or 
>>an up to date reality framework?".
>>3. more seriously: "is the US/WEF scheme credible in the middle range?"
>>
>>jfc
>>
>>
>>NB. WEF/Davos:
>>
>>- Wikipedia: "The foundation is funded by its 1,000 member 
>>companies, typically global enterprises with more than five billion 
>>dollars in turnover (varying by industry and region). These 
>>enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry 
>>and/or country and play a leading role in shaping the future of 
>>their industry and/or region").
>>
>>- In our internet world we know them as the US GAFAM+:  they are 
>>the leaders of RFC 6852 business "global communities" accumulating 
>>the RFC 6852 "huge bounty".
>>
>>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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/governance/attachments/20140827/aa4516fd/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