Hi Thiago, all,
I agree with most of your comments below.
I know that time is the biggest constraint and I apologize if my
previous message was read as insulting. It was meant to be just
provocative, hoping for some reactions :-)
I believe that CNSIG should have a public position about this issue and
I would be willing to contribute some time helping to formulate a
statement if there is interest. I didn't ask from anyone a
"contribution" that I didn't offer also myself, that is to have an
But if it is not only the lack of time, but a conscious choice to "stay
out" from ISOC politics (this is how interpreted your mention of "real
politiks") then I strongly disagree and I think that with such an
approach CNSIG has really little to offer and I would not want to be
part of it. As I said, not that this will be a big loss since I was
anyway at the border of "eligibility" to be a member in the first place.
But this is how I feel and I took some time to express it. Like yours,
this is a small contribution :-)
To summarize, and stop here, for me it is fine if not much is happening
here in normal times, since everyone is busy doing good stuff, as long
as when it is really needed, in emergencies like the way the .ORG sale
is being managed, CNSIG can play the most important role that it could
as a "representative" body. To take position.
On 18.02.20 18:14, novaes(a)riseup.net wrote:
Nice to hear from you again!
Since you're using my personal view (and advice) to propose a CNSIG
position, I'd like to make a few comments.
On 2020-02-18 08:39, panayotis antoniadis wrote:
Many EU Chapters are doing so:
And exactly because CNs are used as an excuse in this debate, I think it
is a matter of credibility for CNSIG to act as representative for CNs
all over the world to take a position based on values and not financial
Instead of "credibility", this group needs to exist to
there's nothing happening here for months...
But if the majority here thinks that "real
politiks" is the best
strategy, I understand and I would simply exclude myself from this group.
"real politiks" is not a "strategy" for CN, it's just a matter
evaluating the political consequences of selling .ORG... It seems you
like to play a kind of activism police in here, without any real
So, I really understand that people are afraid to
loose critical support
for their projects and it is not a coincidence that it is mostly EU
chapters that have publicly opposed the .ORG sale.
I think people are not afraid
of anything... we're just busy doing our
own stuff, and it's not a coincidence if we don't have time for
statements. However, as said before, I'm personally against what ISOC is
doing and have no problems in making it public.
But life is full of hard choices, and I have made
mine even if in a more
"comfortable" position than others (but not sure for how long): Dignity
is more important, and more healthy, than dirty money :-)
Panos, this last
sentence ignores all the efforts being made by this
group. If you know any source of clean money, please let us know!
> On 07.12.19 20:40, novaes(a)riseup.net wrote:
>> Hi Panos, all
>> Great to hear from you!
>> Personally, I think this decision is a disaster for the Internet in
>> general, not only for the "reputation" of ISOC.
>> If CNSIG would like to take a position, maybe it's time to do it now
>> (even though it would mean not really much in the process in my
>> opinion). I vote against selling a common good to Ethos Capital.
>> My aim was to advise that ISOC is using CN as an excuse, and we should
>> be aware of it. Besides the advice, as a SIG inside ISOC, real politiks
>> could be useful for the development of CN; if not now, in the near
>> future, CNSIG could play an important role in demanding programs and
>> funds based on ISOC own public discourse, that's all.
>> On 2019-12-07 15:28, panayotis antoniadis wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Just to say that I am involved in this debate through the ISOC
>>> Switzerland Chapter, which has joined the "opposition" to this
>>> together with a few other chapters, especially because of the
>>> non-transparent way that this was made.
>>> My opinion is that independently from the decision making process, this
>>> is a bad development that can harm significantly the reputation of ISOC.
>>> I am not sure if it is still possible to stop it, but I don't feel like
>>> "building on it", at least not at this stage.
>>> For now I would ask if the CNSIG would be willing to take actually a
>>> position on the selling of .org to a private firm.
>>> Btw, the Swiss chapter recently received the news that we got a Beyond
>>> the Net Grant to run a platform (a monthly gathering in NetHood's new
>>> space in Zurich, http://langstrasse200.ch/
) for "digital
>>> in collaboration with different organizations including the
>>> pep.foundation, CCC Switzerland, the University of Zurich and more.
>>> On 05.12.19 23:20, novaes(a)riseup.net wrote:
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>> You're probably aware of the fact that ISOC sold .org to Ethos
>>>> (I was just reading the transcript):
>>>> What seems relevant for CNSIG is that one of the arguments used to
>>>> justify the transaction was "connecting the unconnected":
>>>> "Gonzalo Camarillo: So this actually allows us to fulfill the
>>>> which I think has been stated several times. It's very wide and when
>>>> comes, for example, with connecting the unconnected, we are talking
>>>> about like 4 billion people that could be basically positively affected
>>>> with this". (p.26)
>>>> Maybe it would be opportune for the CNSIG to organize it better in order
>>>> to demand funds/programs more specifically designed to CN goals (I take
>>>> this moment to congratulate Sarantaporo!). What do you think?
>>>> all best,