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