This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list.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?

Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at
Thu Dec 12 08:25:56 CET 2013

I've been doing a bit of questioning around the government circles in
my country and whether they are aware of any such meeting, it seems
there is no knowledge of such a meeting other than the comment that
they've heard something like that is happening. Might be the same for
many countries of the Asian continent.

This brings me back to my point I made earlier about where all this is heading.

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:38 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at> wrote:
> I guess Milton, the larger question is, if you got something so easily
> checkable so completely bolloxed (evidently because of ideological blinders)
> we have to wonder what else in your analysis of the EC document you would
> equally need to have corrected?
> Is there anywhere that we can read the document for ourselves?
> M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: i-coordination-bounces at [mailto:i-coordination-bounces at]
> On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:06 PM
> To: Carlos A. Afonso; I-coordination at
> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point?
> Carlos
> I stand corrected, thanks. It must be my poor Portugese, I had the idea that
> the committee was 50% govt officials and that they were all appointed by
> govt. Regarding foreigners, my point was n ot that CGI should have
> foreigners but that it is a national unit, responding to a national polity.
> ________________________________________
> From: i-coordination-bounces at [i-coordination-bounces at] on
> behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ca at]
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:16 PM
> To: I-coordination at
> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Europe at a tipping point?
> 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:
>>> t
> -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
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at

Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance:
Follow my Tweets:

More information about the I-coordination mailing list