May I ask what part of the Internet under control of the Evil Empire is not forwarding/routing packets and what part of the DNS is not resolving queries ? -J On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:33 PM, JFC Morfin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > At 16:22 17/10/2013, John Curran wrote: > >> I have no knowledge of what the agenda for the Rio meeting will be, but >> note that these are two distinct items in the Montevideo Statement - >> > > Dear John, > there are always two faces to a coin. I am quite glad to hear an USSH > participative opinon, our eventual decision being to join forces or not. > > (1) - They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet >> Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts >> towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. >> This would appear to be similar to "forms and ways to achieve >> pluriparticipative international Internet governance" >> > > If I had to define myself as an IUser, I would say that I am > multistakeholderist and anti-pluriparticipativist, as far as I understand > those terms. Also, I understand the concepts of the WSIS and accept that > one may lobby to refine a favorably brain washed understanding (in keeping > in mind the non-English binding versions) but I have not the singlest idea > of what "the community" may be (except the USSH Inc.: the US StakeHolders > Incorporated in Montevideo?). > > A common polynym vocabulary would be of the essence for our global world > (or is it the total world? what is the adjective for "whole" as in "the > whole is larger than the sum of its parts"?) > This should be the first task for an international meeting. > > (2) They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA >> functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all >> governments, participate on an equal footing. >> This would appear to be similar to moving "ICANN away from unilateral >> oversight", as noted by Brenden. >> > > Correct: > > - What USSH wants for three decades (our 1984 opposing agreement, cf. RFC > 921) is the IANA under multistakeholder cooperation on an equal footing for > every government and ... US coordinated. You know centers in LA and Turkey > and Singapore. Everyone can participate ("Public comment periods are > provided before final standards approval and adoption" ... by USSH without > appeal procedure): pluriparticipatism!=**multistakeholderism !!! > > - ITU wants every Telcos too within the equal footing. Never mind, in case > we really get a conflict, the real emergency back-up root is at Public DNS > (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4). I am ready to the end of the years old "IANA war": > http://googliana.org. > > - What we want is the IANA to be under concerted multistakeholdership on > an equal footing for everyone, including you and me. > > I imagine that both topics will enjoy significant discussion at the >> meeting. >> > > Be sure discussions will start before the meeting. Actually, they have > started (http://bramsummit.org). > jfc >