Andrew, I absolutely agree with you. I think this is overall a very positive development. Let me share what I think is the direction of this 1net initiative and the conference in Brazil. The idea of the 1net is to provide a platform for a dialog between the different players in the Internet Governance arena. The principle used for this is going to be based on the "multi-stakeholder" principle, which means that different people from different groups can join and discuss as equals. These different groups include people from the technical community (us, for instance), business, civil society and even governments. The aim of the dialog is to look at, for instance, Internet Governance topics that have no real home. The idea is that we can discuss these topics that has worked well in the Internet - in an open dialog between all the interested people. Exactly as we do this in the IETF. I also agree the 1net.org is not the most beautiful web page and, even worse, does not even support IPv6. I have pushed this point forward already and I hope this gets addressed quickly. Anyways, I would underline that this is a positive effort trying to address Internet issues in the same way that we have found out in the IETF to work well - open discussion and dialog. I think people should put their skepticism aside for now, subscribe and then contribute actively into shaping this initiative as the dialog starts. I hope this helps. Cheers, Jonne. On 11/19/13 3:16 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Dear colleagues, > >On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:27:39PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> In either case, it seems like it should prompt considerable caution >> rather than considerable haste. > >Perhaps it should prompt considered effort to impart some clue to >those who are trying to do this. I'm not excited about how 1net.org >has been initiated, but it is an opportunity for us to participate >constructively and to carry once again to the would-be >governors-of-Internet our not inconsiderable knowledge of the >technical facts. These set certain boundaries on what is technically >possible to govern on the Internet, and we have a chance here to make >that clear. > >I have managed to join at least one mailing list associated with this >effort. I've already sent one rather pointed message about the >outstanding issues to that mailing list. I'm prepared to relay >messages from others, so if you feel too uncomfortable to do it >yourself because of reservations about the legitimacy of the effort >you may (for the time being!) ask me to send on remarks (with relevant >personally-identifying information redacted if you think that is >important). > >I am reminded of Lyndon Johnson's remark about J. Edgar Hoover and the >tent. I think this is a case where we might want to worry about our >location relative to the inside of the tent. > >> It's not as if it is difficult to set up a basic web site these days... > >I suspect that depends on who you are, and what you mean by "basic web >site". DNSSEC, IPv6, good certificate handling, and clear whois data >are all somewhat mysterious to many people these days. To the extent >that is true, it says something about the technical environment we >(all of us) have built. This issue was a subtext of some of the >plenary discussion in Vancouver, so let's take this opportunity to >show we know how to help for real. > >Best regards, > >A >(as ever, speaking only for myself) > >-- >Andrew Sullivan >ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx