This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.

[I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point?

Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca
Mon Dec 9 20:16:46 CET 2013


Milton, I have to disagree with a lot of surprise. Coming from you, I
cannot believe this misunderstanging about CG. Not quibbling, just
recalling some facts:

- CGI.br is composed of 21 members, only 8 of them from the federal
government, and one from the national council of the 27 state
secretariats of science & technology (btw, only one of the eight was a
minister, and he quit in favor of another member of his ministry); all
the other 12 members are non-gov, 11 elected by their constituencies and
one chosen by consensus as an experient ICT & Internet expert. So the
gov is a minority -- where did you get it otherwise?

- CGI.br had to be created by a decree, sine qua non condition to allow
official participation of gov members. We actually dream of it being set
in stone by a law, not just a decree. However, not even the electoral
commission which supervises the election of the non-govs is led by or
suffers any interference from gov. CGI.br is a commission, NIC.br is the
associated NGO in charge of all operations. Not a cent earned by the
operation of NIC.br (distribution of names and numbers) is public -- all
is private money administered by a non-profit NGO (NIC.br). Not a cent
to cover all CG's expenses, as well as all running activities we
support, comes from gov. The operation is financially and
institutionally private, independent from gov, totally self-sustained
and pays its taxes as any other private organization.

- Why would we need foreigners, seriously? CG is a pluriparticipative
commission of Brazilians to oversee the management and development of
the ".br" domain name system and associated tasks, as well as advise on
national Internet development policies. However, you totally know we
have a lot of interaction with foreign/international organizations and
fora, including occasional (and significant) funding of international
activities and events.

- Our 10 Principles were developed by consensus over a 2-year period.
Gov members helped a lot, but this was a truly pluriparticipative
effort. There was no gov filter of any kind here.

- CG plans its resource allocation by consensus, not a single cent of
expenses is determined by gov (except for taxes of course), and
prioritizes its investments in structuring projects also by consensus.

Please try to find another short term to call us :) "State-led" is
certainly not one of them.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 12/09/2013 02:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Carlos and Jeremy, If one is familiar with the history of WSIS, and
> with the initial reaction of states in WSIS to the demands for
> participation by non-state actors, and with the battle over 'enhanced
> cooperation', it is flat wrong to dismiss the EC draft's repeated
> emphasis on different (and subordinate) stakeholder roles as
> "ethereal." It is what the whole IG debate Is fundamentally about
> right now. For the EC to come down firmly on the side of
> subordinating non-state actors to state actors in all policy making
> processes would be a highly significant development - one that many
> of us would think of as a setback to Internet freedom and autonomy as
> well.
> 
> As for waiting for the full document, well, welcome to the Heisenberg
> principle. Because of our intervention, and because of the internal
> opposition to these reactionary trends in the EC, it is unlikely that
> the "final document" you see will be the same as the draft that was
> leaked.
> 
> Carlos: No need to quibble about this, really, but an organization
> created by a national law, the majority of whose members are
> government ministries, and without any representation from foreigners
> might reasonably be called 'state-led.'
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: i-coordination-bounces at nro.net
> [mailto:i-coordination-bounces at nro.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A.
> Afonso Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 6:48 AM To: Olivier MJ
> Crepin-Leblond; I-coordination at nro.net Subject: Re: [I-coordination]
> Europe at a tipping point?
> 
> Hi people, I would like to read the whole document. I think IGP's
> analysis may be overreacting and may be misleading, but it would be
> great to read the whole doc first.
> 
> Two quick points which are independent of the doc's content:
> 
> - CGI.br is not "state-led";
> 
> - "in their respective roles" is in fact ethereal and also includes
> the "respective roles" of governments, whatever this means -- it is
> of such generic scope that one cannot conclude that the world will
> end just by the mention of this.
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 12/09/2013 07:12 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> whilst we're all discussing who's going to be sitting physically at
>>  the table in Brazil, the world moves on and our colleagues in
>> Europe might have some (real) work to do:
>> 
>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/12/06/europe-at-a-tipping-point
>>
>> 
-leaked-ec-document-stirs-internet-governance-controversy/
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Olivier
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ I-coordination
>> mailing list I-coordination at nro.net 
>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ I-coordination
> mailing list I-coordination at nro.net 
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
> 



More information about the I-coordination mailing list