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