This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list.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

[I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point?

Peter Dengate Thrush barrister at
Tue Dec 10 11:27:03 CET 2013

Hello Carlos,
One of the delights of the ccTLD world is the diversity of governance models, including the varying degrees of government involvement, ranging from complete government ownership and control to no government presence at all.

What are the advantages ( assuming some) of having govt representatives round the table in Brazil?
Is there a different kind of interaction (qualitatively or quantitatively) between the reps. from Federal and the State rep?  Are there issues where it would have been better to have had no government reps..,more?

I can imagine other cultures less "robust" than Brazil where the presence of even 1 government official would have a chilling effect: is  having government presence ever a problem in Brazil?

Have you developed any special mechanisms to constrain governmental influence?

What does the government see as the benefits it derives from the exchange?

Grateful for your inputs.


Peter Dengate Thrush

> On 9/12/2013, at 2:16 pm, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at> wrote:
> 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:
> - 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?
> - 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. is a commission, is the
> associated NGO in charge of all operations. Not a cent earned by the
> operation of (distribution of names and numbers) is public -- all
> is private money administered by a non-profit NGO ( 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
>> [mailto:i-coordination-bounces at] On Behalf Of Carlos A.
>> Afonso Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 6:48 AM To: Olivier MJ
>> Crepin-Leblond; I-coordination at 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:
>> - 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:
> -leaked-ec-document-stirs-internet-governance-controversy/
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Olivier
>>> _______________________________________________ I-coordination
>>> mailing list I-coordination at 
>> _______________________________________________ I-coordination
>> mailing list I-coordination at 
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at

More information about the I-coordination mailing list