Subject: [iucg] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:50:33 +0200

At 07:26 10/10/2013, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>I agree with you Rafik, harmony among ambitious “leaders” does 
>not mean that we have solved the problem of how to make Internet 
>governance responsive to Internet users. It is easy for ICANN’s 
>CEO, who would like more autonomy from the USG, to cozy up to 
>Brazil’s President, and in some ways it is a good initiative, 
>especially following the Uruguay declaration, which indicates that 
>the world’s multistakeholder organizations agree with the 
>longstanding position of the Internet Governance Project that the 
>privileged US position over the DNS root should be ended. But that 
>is just one small step, and we have to avoid letting the media 
>attention focus exclusively on “leaders” as if the controlled the internet.

Milton,

Here, I certainly agree with you, Rafik, and some others. I 
understand that as an academic you do not want to commit to any 
position at this stage.

I have been on the OpenUse strategic side for 35 years, and have been 
directly engaged in this process. I would be very, very surprised if 
Fadi and Dilma have agreed upon something which was not well prepared 
in advance (John Curan reminded the IANA NTIA NOI) and endorsed in 
Montevideo (when all of these people left the US the NTIA was not 
shutdown, and by any means it is not shot-down) and closely monitored 
(supported ?) on the European PRISM.

Now, my only question is: what is good in there for OpenUse? I think 
it is too soon to tell. We need to study the flaws and the leaks of 
the next five steps:
- cyberSeoul
- the High-Level ethitechnic meeting
- the Bali outcome
- reactions to Neelie Kroes call
- the ISOC response to my RFC 6852 appeal (I will only send it after 
Bali for it to be the most useful to all).

We now have USSH (US Stake Holders) Inc. with the OECD and Brazil as 
clients. This is a commercial and political reshuffling between Dubai 
and Montevideo signatories. This may lead to a USSH monopoly or 
failure, a USSH/ITU alliance (my old ITU-I proposition?) or war, an 
NRO monopoly or the emergence of NRObis. I do not think that this is 
our priority, however.

Our priority is more probably the clarification that we are starting 
to observe among ourselves between "civil society" leaders interested 
in pure, old human rights, ready to negotiate agreements, and the 
"digital society" members who also are interested in the 
practicalities of digitally extended human rights and in carving them 
in the "source code".

Because "code is law".

jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:32:49 +0200

At 23:50 10/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote:

My take is that many in the
technical community are feeling appalled and

betrayed by what they/we have learned through Snowden.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your analysis. I think this is very important, if we want
to proceed positively, to identify, know and understand better each
others. To that end I will try to maintain this note and make an IETF
Draft of it. Comments are welcome.

Actually, the so called "technical community" case is critical
as its members detain (along late Peter de Blanc’s [ccTLD Chair at Marina
de Rey, 2000 ICANN meeting] well known response to Mike Robert, as an
a-parte to me) the keys of the “nuclear arsenal” of which ICANN tries now
for 13 years to prevent us to use. Something we are extremely cautious
about, and now we feel we have to review due to the loss of IAB
architectonical neutral guidance.

This calls for an architectonic decision. This memo explains this
decision.

The background

If you consider the IETF experience and terminology there are four
kinds of people who are technically concerned by  the internet (cf.
RFC 3935 which defines the mission of the IETF based on three decades of
experience). I use to call them the “net keepers”:

(1) those who influence by their documentation,

(2) those who design,

(3) those who use, and

(4) those who manage the internet.

In your post, you implicitly refer to the first category which currently
has the focus, because some (cf. RFC 6852) want it to switch:

- from the neutral and democratic (yet not specifically defined) “goal of
making the Internet work better” strictly subject to documented values
(RFC 3935).

- to “the consideration of the economics of global markets, where the
deployment of standards is regardless of their formal status” and is to
“contribute[s] to the creation of new markets and the growth and
expansion of existing markets” in “foster[ing] global
competition”.

Personal involvements

I understand that you yourself belong to the fourth one, while most
of the people on this list belong to the third one. What is discussed
today is the behavior of the members of the second category, who design
and shape the internet mostly on political premises.

To fully understand what will happen, one has to consider the people from
the first category, those who technically influence. There are four
classes:

1. the professionals paid by a corporation or an academy.

2. the people voluntarily working for the people in the application area,

3. the people voluntarily researching and developing in the network
system area.

4. the lead users able to adapt their digital environment to their
needs.

Motivations

All of them enjoy the "joy of solving technical problems"
you mention, ethitechnically if possible because it respects their values
and is more difficult and, therefore, more fun. None of the seasoned ones
have learned anything technical through Snowden: they only have been
informed about the (sometimes odd or old) ways some of the things were
implemented by one of the leading intelligence centers (a significant
part of them is directly or indirectly an on intelligence center
payroll).

Concerns and capacities

1. "Class #1 people" perform paid work. Their position has
been well documented by the IAB in RFC 3869 and their ethic in RFC 3935.
These RFCs seem to be contradicted by RFC 6852.

2. "Class #2 people" are not really concerned by the network
issues.

3. "Class #3 people" number not so many. Their main concern is
the innovation limitations imposed by the Class #1 culture. This is
partly described in RFC 3774. Pioneers know that the true technical
problems are the architectonical complexity (exciting to explore) and the
political, economic, international, societal usual hysteresis that some
of them are now able to scientifically theorize.

4. "Class #4 people" will be able to move the world when they
reach a critical mass.

- FLOSS made them hope that they could join class #1 through ICANN
(@large) and/or IETF
(http://iucg.org/wiki), etc. but they
faced more interfacing problems there than class #3 people.

- Then they hoped that Civil Society could help but there is too much
politicalese.

- Govts try to help them but usually through too much bureaucracy.

-  An ITU-I could actually be their best bet. But ITU demands big
budgets.

Architectonical esthetic

As "Class #4 people" reach criticality in terms of size,
exposure, available tools, etc. some of them realize that they are still
a small and emerging but key fifth multistakeholder group by their own,
forming the "Digital Society" with its own solutions, interests
and most of all esthetic (“a people centered, à caractère humain,
centrada en la persona” as Tunis proclaimed it – to be compared with the
RFC 6852 FRAND esthetic [“fair terms may vary from royalty-free to fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND)”] ),

They understand that they form a group that can
only grow. This group has tried over the years to document a technical
ethic toward their esthetic when designing, operating, and managing the
world digital ecosystem. To that end, its members dutifully participated
in the GNSO, IDNHO, icannatlarge.org, various ICANN @large lists, the
IGF, and civil society. They havebserved for 14 years, since Sotiris
Sotiropoulos' initial proposition of working out a 33rd HR article on
digital human rights, that no one but themselves could understand and
document the technical, architectural and architectectonic roots of this
cause and pragmatically advance it in the source where it belongs
("code is law") for the common good of all.

Identification by the other stakeholders

This is probably the major lesson of the current civil society
exchanges. Civil Society shows its limits in terms of influence and
decision capacity. However, while they only represent a limited number of
non-operative activists, they are seriously considered by key people in
charge of real operations (RIR CEOs are acknowledged managers heading
internet critical organizations) that "USSH inc." (US
StakeHolders, Incorporated) has delegated to inform and hear Civil
Society.

This happens while people with digital needs, concerns, uses, budgets
(private or small businesses), and most of all innovative solutions, are
not listened to, not even by the IETF which genuinely tried to welcome
them but is not adapted to their proceedings. This is something that must
change if the whole digital ecosystem is to reach equilibrium.

The common priority

The priority for all of us is, therefore, to get:

- the Digital Society identified as such (those who attend to the digital
sphere of our world) and acknowledged by all,

- its 4 classes listened to and supported until it shares in the MS
leadership of our world.

- This Digital Society to structure itself to better understand and help
to more intelligently use the common interest capacities of the world
digital ecosystem toward a sustainable development for all (including the
USSH clients).

This seems to become a practical necessity when we observe the
difficulties encountered by the four classical multistakeholder groups
alone. This necessity has been acknowledged by ICANN and Brazil in
considering that Telcos are members of the family. So are the IUsers
(intelligent network users).

A preliminary analysis seems to indicate that the needs are:

- a polycratic cooperation of openness-oriented projects, coalitions, and
people

- a brain/bot referential registry

- an Open Research and Development concerted (not centrally coordinated)
cooperation

- open funding information

- the establishment of mutual relations with the members of the four
other multistakeholder groups.

A concerted review toward an OpenUse initiative will be undertaken in the
coming weeks by digital society stakeholders.

jfc

These are folks who

helped build the tech of  the Internet not for dotcom millions or to
support

one foreign/security policy or another but rather because they believed
that

the capacity for networking and communications that they were enabling
would

contribute to human betterment (and I would guess, for the sheer joy
of

solving the technical problems involved.

They more than anyone else now feel the sting of betrayal both
professional

(what were they building) and personal (who was telling them the truth
and

who wasn't) and they even more than others realize how much of the
Internet

was built on trust and continues to operate on the basis of trust,
how

fragile trust is, how quickly it disappears and how difficult it is
to

rebuild it (and whatever else relies on it) when it is gone.

The notice from the EFF concerning its withdrawal from the GNI, I
just

circulated is perhaps the first among many such formal withdrawals of
trust

and long term collaborations because of what has been revealed by
Snowden

but most definitely not the last.

M

-----Original Message-----

From: McTim
[
mailto:[email-masked]]

Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:02 PM

To: Raul Echeberria

Cc: [email-masked]; Carlos A. Afonso; michael gurstein;
Lee W

McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon;
&lt,[email-masked]&gt,;

NCSG List

Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will
host

world event on Internet governance in 2014

Raul,

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Raul Echeberria <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Carlos:

> I agree with you that the President Rousseff position is of course
not

based on the Montevideo statement. It should be very very arrogant to
think

that.

as well as not physically possible (unless you had a time
machine).

My point to Carlos and MG was that the T&A are taking the lead on
this in

the spirit of "continuing cooperation".

My reaction was also motivated by Jeremy saying;

"It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical
community

(ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced
Cooperation."

Which is 180 degrees different from my analysis. It seems to me that
ISOC

and the other Montevideo signatories are stronger in the WGEC becasue
of

these 2 events.

Would it be possible to disclose if the Summit was discussed in
Montevideo?

--

Cheers,

McTim

"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route

indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:49:26 +0200

At 20:52 11/10/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

Valid point Parminder.Â

By then it will be a Brazilian
initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by
ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont
change after that...

Then ?...

It is an NTIA (or NTIA endorsed/concerted) initiative, presented by ICANN
as a response to Dilma's UN speech, that Dilma could not refuse and,
therefore, everyone must pretend that it is her initiative in line with
her speech. To succeed, Dilma needs us. Not now, when the initiative is
led by US StakeHolders inc. + Telcos (including Brazilians), but rather
when they call on us in response to our first letter.

If we support ICANN (NTIA + Brazil Telcos) now, we fail people, the US,
Brazil, and Dilma. The summit must be perceived as coming from (what it
is not) Dilma’s Brazil (Civil Society, OpenUse, Private sector,
international organizations, IGF, UN and OpenStand+ICANN), otherwise it
will be NTIA's coup against the UN (all countries) in coopetition with
the ITU Dubai-signatories (i.e. Russia, China, and possibly Europe[?] as
a liaison), using all of us. I have nothing against the US
"e-colonization" strategy (which is named
"internationalization" in the normative area, e.g. Unicode;
OECD in economy, NATO in military), except that:

- I do not think it can bring enough stability to the world digital
ecosystem because it is based on  1983 architectural
statUS-quo that is to protect a market and political statUS-quo.

- I oppose "globalization" being used as a policy.
Globalization is a practical fact that raises problems (economic crisis,
global warming, etc.). The world's uncontrolled globalization is a
pandemic that has to be taken care of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism.

- If I was wrong. If the initiative was not sponsored by the NTIA:
who would in this scenario protect the rights of the USG against an IGH
hijacking by ICANN and Brazil? How could the CS rebuild the world only
with those two?

Technically, the problem is that the big-data pollution anti-algorithmic
governance shield of this strategy was the NSA. Snowden has shown that
the NSA was no longer technically/professionally reliable. The NSA is a
secret agency that is not able to protect its own secrets. What about
ours?

Question: why do we only talk of the US StakeHolders Inc. and Brazil’s
President?

What about the Chinese, Russian, European, French, Indian, Tunisian,
Malian, Liechtenstienian, or Palauan (smallest UN member) people’s
positions and societal, industrial, and Telcos’ interests? Why don’t we
discuss the US citizens' democratic feeling on internet globalization?
Why do we never ask around and just discuss the opinions of the happy few
of us?

This is most probably because a global democracy can only be
multilateralistic (the UN) or imperialistic and colonialistic (a
dominance). In our area, this means ITU or statUSSH-quo (the status-quo
that benefits the US and all those having a stake in the US private
sector) – actually both as we saw in Dubai and now in Montevideo. We know
that none of them could be sustainable as they would resurrect the cold
war. Actually what we should try to work out is a multicultural,
multilinguistic, multinational, multistakeholder, open and, therefore,
non-communitarian global societal equivalent ideal of the democratic
ideal, i.e. an esthetic for our global and digital time.

Such a form of global governance has a name: it is to be called
polycracy. Some of its rules were identified by the WSIS. However, while
we still try to understand the way they work and discover its best
practices, its incompletion and lack of enhanced cooperation (by the
ICANN, RIRs, OpenStand hysteresis) confuse us, pollute everyone’s
thinking, and deny all of us the experience that we need.

NB. Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current
environment (real post-Dubai world) but also on its past environment
(statUS-quo).

Let us take enough time for reflection: USSH Inc. states in RFC 6852 that
there is a new modern industrial/normative paradigm. This is the same for
international societal norms, relations, and tools: we have to discuss
and word out the new human and digital rights paradigm and impose them in
the facts (not necessarily through Anonymous exploits, but more
adequately through the digital artifacts that we design, open-code, pay,
and use for and on the net).

Politically, Civil Society and the Digital Society (OpenUse) do not have
to consider political strategies, but rather civil and digital rights and
globally constitutional (architectonic) issues. Which world digital
extension do we want? How do we achieve and protect it?

A simple test to check if what I am saying is correct: before supporting
ICANN, what did we obtain from ICANN in terms of open-roots globalization
rights as per the Internet technology (and ICANN’s own documents)?

Send Dilma, Fadi, and copy Ban Ki-moon and the world that under the
circumstances we are ready to discuss anything with anyone who would want
to better pursue the WSIS and digital millenium objectives.

jfc

parminder

Anriette

On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote:

Anja +1

We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not
engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration
geopolitics.Â

I worry at the level ofÂ exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as
has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better
resourced actors that ultimately Â will result in a very different , more
state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on.
I hope I'm wrong...

regards

Robert

--

R. Guerra

Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081

Twitter:
twitter.com/netfreedomÂ

Email:
[email-masked]

On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:

When civil society writes too
many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose
their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be
received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that
when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next
week, she will simply receive it with fatigue.

Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is
what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days
time will have more force.

Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other
ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government thatÂ
we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea,
including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by
seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF.

My two paise,

Anja

On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow
<[email-masked]> wrote:

Parminder
<
[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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 Â a point, just about any

> political act carries risk.

Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries

more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the

certainty of losing that opportunity.

Greetings,

Norbert

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

Â  Â  Â

[email-masked]

To be removed from the list, visit:

Â  Â  Â

http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:

Â  Â  Â

http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

Â  Â  Â
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

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

Â Â Â Â

[email-masked]

To be removed from the list, visit:

Â Â Â Â

http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:

Â Â Â Â

http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

Â Â Â Â
http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email:

http://translate.google.com/translate_t

--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen
[email-masked]
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726
1692

--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen
[email-masked]
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726
1692

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

[email-masked]

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

---

From: " João Carlos R. Caribé " <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:29:00 -0300

I fully agree with the JFC Morfin, and say more like Brazilian, the initiative come from civil society, understand: 

Until a few months ago, Dilma had another position, followed the advice of the Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, that follow the agenda of telecom companies. 

Many activists, including me, and opinion leaders criticized the posture of Paul Bernardo, also we decided to criticize Dilma, since in practice, the adherence to the agenda of telecom companies was the government's position, and not only the ministry.

Considering the popularity of Rousseff had fallen a lot during the demonstrations in the streets, which were heavily exploited by the opposition to weaken it politically. This new opposition coming from the Internet could be tragic for his project of re-election in 2014.

After conversation with his predecessor, Lula, Dilma became advised by Franklin Martins, and during this process she met with CGI.Br where she got much of his speech at the UN. This speech that won strong support from the international community, as we know.

Also we know that ICANN strives to strengthen its multistakeholder model, and thus distance themselves from the image of being an "appendix" of the U.S. government. Realizing the opportunity arose after Rousseff's speech at the UN, Fadi and his counselors come immediately to meet our President to seize this window of opportunity that open.

And that we have to face, a window of opportunity, we from the civil society have to position ourselves as protagonists behind this "wave", because we know that bad decisions that could change the internet as we know, it may arise, and this time we have to act together and strengthened to rebate.

My $0,02

-
João Carlos Caribé
(021) 8761 1967
(021) 4042 7727
Skype joaocaribe
Enviado via iPad

> Em 13/10/2013, às 08:49, JFC Morfin <[email-masked]> escreveu:
> 
>>> By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont change after that...
> 
> Then ?...
> 
> It is an NTIA (or NTIA endorsed/concerted) initiative, presented by ICANN as a response to Dilma's UN speech, that Dilma could not refuse and, therefore, everyone must pretend that it is her initiative in line with her speech. To succeed, Dilma needs us. Not now, when the initiative is led by US StakeHolders inc. + Telcos (including Brazilians), but rather when they call on us in response to our first letter.
> 
> If we support ICANN (NTIA + Brazil Telcos) now, we fail people, the US, Brazil, and Dilma. The summit must be perceived as coming from (what it is not) Dilma’s Brazil (Civil Society, OpenUse, Private sector, international organizations, IGF, UN and OpenStand+ICANN), otherwise it will be NTIA's coup against the UN (all countries) in coopetition with the ITU Dubai-signatories (i.e. Russia, China, and possibly Europe[?] as a liaison), using all of us. I have nothing against the US "e-colonization" strategy (which is named "internationalization" in the normative area, e.g. Unicode; OECD in economy, NATO in military), except that:
> 
> - I do not think it can bring enough stability to the world digital ecosystem because it is based on  1983 architectural  statUS-quo that is to protect a market and political statUS-quo.
> - I oppose "globalization" being used as a policy. Globalization is a practical fact that raises problems (economic crisis, global warming, etc.). The world's uncontrolled globalization is a pandemic that has to be taken care of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism.
> - If I was wrong. If the initiative was not sponsored by the NTIA: who would in this scenario protect the rights of the USG against an IGH hijacking by ICANN and Brazil? How could the CS rebuild the world only with those two?
> 
> Technically, the problem is that the big-data pollution anti-algorithmic governance shield of this strategy was the NSA. Snowden has shown that the NSA was no longer technically/professionally reliable. The NSA is a secret agency that is not able to protect its own secrets. What about ours?
> 
> Question: why do we only talk of the US StakeHolders Inc. and Brazil’s President? 
> 
> What about the Chinese, Russian, European, French, Indian, Tunisian, Malian, Liechtenstienian, or Palauan (smallest UN member) people’s positions and societal, industrial, and Telcos’ interests? Why don’t we discuss the US citizens' democratic feeling on internet globalization? Why do we never ask around and just discuss the opinions of the happy few of us? 
> 
> This is most probably because a global democracy can only be multilateralistic (the UN) or imperialistic and colonialistic (a dominance). In our area, this means ITU or statUSSH-quo (the status-quo that benefits the US and all those having a stake in the US private sector) – actually both as we saw in Dubai and now in Montevideo. We know that none of them could be sustainable as they would resurrect the cold war. Actually what we should try to work out is a multicultural, multilinguistic, multinational, multistakeholder, open and, therefore, non-communitarian global societal equivalent ideal of the democratic ideal, i.e. an esthetic for our global and digital time.
> 
> Such a form of global governance has a name: it is to be called polycracy. Some of its rules were identified by the WSIS. However, while we still try to understand the way they work and discover its best practices, its incompletion and lack of enhanced cooperation (by the ICANN, RIRs, OpenStand hysteresis) confuse us, pollute everyone’s thinking, and deny all of us the experience that we need.
> 
> NB. Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment (real post-Dubai world) but also on its past environment (statUS-quo). 
> 
> Let us take enough time for reflection: USSH Inc. states in RFC 6852 that there is a new modern industrial/normative paradigm. This is the same for international societal norms, relations, and tools: we have to discuss and word out the new human and digital rights paradigm and impose them in the facts (not necessarily through Anonymous exploits, but more adequately through the digital artifacts that we design, open-code, pay, and use for and on the net). 
> 
> Politically, Civil Society and the Digital Society (OpenUse) do not have to consider political strategies, but rather civil and digital rights and globally constitutional (architectonic) issues. Which world digital extension do we want? How do we achieve and protect it?
> 
> A simple test to check if what I am saying is correct: before supporting ICANN, what did we obtain from ICANN in terms of open-roots globalization rights as per the Internet technology (and ICANN’s own documents)? 
> 
> Send Dilma, Fadi, and copy Ban Ki-moon and the world that under the circumstances we are ready to discuss anything with anyone who would want to better pursue the WSIS and digital millenium objectives.
> 
> jfc
> 
>>> parminder 
>>>> 
>>>> Anriette
>>>> 
>>>>> We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics.Â 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I worry at the level ofÂ exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately Â will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong...
>>>>> 
>>>>> regards
>>>>> 
>>>>> Robert
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> R. Guerra
>>>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedomÂ 
>>>>> Email: [email-masked]
>>>>> 
>>>>>> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government thatÂ  we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My two paise,
>>>>>> Anja
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>> Parminder < [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>> > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is
>>>>>> Â  Â  Â [email-masked]
>>>>>> Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>>>> Â Â Â Â [email-masked]
>>>>>> Â Â Â Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Â Â Â Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> Â Â Â Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:16:10 +0200

Dear Norbert,

I am afraid that repeating your position and
stating that you will repeat it again for the last time is not a
consensus but rather influence :-).

Also, stating that your opponents have to put their political situation
at risk if they wish to oppose you, while you don’t risk yours, sounds
like an abuse of a dominant position !!!

Ouhaou! This does not sound like you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus : Consensus
decision-making is a
group
decision making process that seeks the consent of all
participants.

At 14:27 13/10/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:

The precise definition of
“consensus” is “lack of sustained opposition”.

This is an IETF “rough consensus”.

Anyway, the dissensus on “consensus” definition is as old as the ICANN
and IG debate.

That is what it means, not more,
not less. If some people are strongly

in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain

opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend
political

capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a
decision

in favor.

Is it not risky to state such a thing on a list that is watch by opposing
interests? If we are truly preparing a global summit, let get real:
several Agencies have a copy of our mails.

If “consensus” meant that every
single person has to be in favor, most

organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would
never

reach any decisions.

Expressing a consensus means describing in a consensual decision in a way
that every single participant agrees on the way it is worded. If a single
position is documented this is a consensus, if several positions as well
as the way they decided to mutually relate is documented, it is a
multi-consensus. If the mutual relations have not been agreed on, this is
a disagreement. Otherwise, this is a dissensus.

At this stage, the situation that we have reached is a dissensus.

> we are effectively working
against each other here.

Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some
of

the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to

discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action,
I

strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working

against each other here”.

In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign
it

does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits

action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter
it

could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter
it

could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do

understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently.

> I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an

> alternative. If that could be a solution for all

No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since
I've

already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present

letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat

them again.

I observe that there are several opposing strategies. The lack of
coordination between these strategies is detrimental to everyone, except
to the interests that I identify as gathered within USSH Inc. (the US
StakeHolders, incorporated in Montevideo).

However, I do not think it is a superficial problem. It is
architectonical, that is to say related to the very nature of what
underlays the digital reality. The difference is between those who
consider that:

- either it can be dealt with through politics (i.e. "the art of
commanding free people") because it is a political maneuver.

- or it is deeper because structural civilizational interests are at
stake (a "coup" by ICANN against the WSIS and the ITU majority)
to impose the Telco’s market and radical monopolies against the control
of States.

In my case, this leads me to identify that I can neither trust:

- Governments, because their protection of me, as a citizen, is
the NSA and its different national equivalent yet they are unable to
protect their own secrets.

- the private sector (the Montevidean signatories), because they
are disloyal to their own multistakeholderism and, therefore, more
probably to their own FRAND sales terms.

- the international organizations, because they have no legitimacy
other than the support from everyone by everyone. At this stage (1) ITU
is divided and (2) this division leads to confusion through this possible
non-UN accepted counter-summit by ICANN/Brazil, where USSH inc. attempts
to trap the ITU majority that Brazil belongs to
(
http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html).

- Civil Society, because it shows here that it has neither the
necessary multistakeholderist structure to explore, express, and sustain
a consensus nor the practical capacity to significantly influence the
other multistakeholder groups. I discover also that it is under
influence: it wants to send consensual letters when there is no
consensus.

This means that I can only trust the machines that we all use because
"code is law" when we all are to use the same code. This means
that the only law that can be enforced is a "net open code" by
all and for all. I note that this actually is the internet normative
paradigm from the very beginning [what people remember as “democratic”]
that USSH inc. tries to change to the advantage of some.

This definitly means that instead of talking about the ways to regulate
the use of a politically constrained digital architecture, the time has
come to free the code within its existing architecture - by its
acknowledged open use (as documented in RFC 5895) and, if necessary, to
question that architecture if it does not turn out to be safe/open enough
for our human digital rights, in particular our digital rights to
innovation and protection. Since IAB has decided to quit as a technical
guidance neutral referent (RFC 6852), the alternative can only be a
grassroots alternative.

In such a case, there is no more dissensus between us but a possible
cooperation between two endeavors, one oriented toward Human Rights and
the other more specifically toward Human Digital Rights.

Best

jfc

---

From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:16:46 +0200

FYI
 
http://www.cato.org/events/nsa-surveillance-what-we-know-what-do-about-it
 
Sensenbrenner proposes "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-Collection, and Online Monitoring Act" (USA FREEDOM Act).
 
Wolfgang