<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Swift was sanctioned in Iran during Obama time. <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Beloved UN imposed some of the most severe sanctions on Iran. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It was the civil society/noncommercials that brought the voice of people and issue of sanctions to ICANN and made concrete recommendations. Until then, no one even knew what was going on. Even the governments of sanctioned countries were not aware of sanctions. (issue of sanctions were brought forward through a process some were so keen on bashing because it did not help them with their idealistic notions of Internet governance, caring about people was not at stake at that time).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">And then:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><<<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">But why should people here protest, they aren't from Iran>></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="">The sentence above is a very simplistic way of provocation. So I choose to ignore it. </div><div class="gmail_default" style=""><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:38 AM parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">This connects to my below email and
therefore posting it...</font></p>
<p>Iran to be choked by cutting if from global financial grids, at
the whim and fancy of the US President <br>
</p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><a class="m_5554677522700029873moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1450521/swift-suspends-iran-banks" target="_blank">https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1450521/swift-suspends-iran-banks</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">and hear the threat</font></p>
<p><span>"I promise you that doing business with Iran in
defiance of our sanctions will ultimately be a much more painful
business decision than pulling out of Iran and being connected
to Iran entirely," says the US Secretary of State ...
<a class="m_5554677522700029873moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.firstpost.com/business/us-warns-of-severe-swift-penalties-for-firms-continuing-sanctionable-commercial-transactions-with-iran-5509241.html" target="_blank">https://www.firstpost.com/business/us-warns-of-severe-swift-penalties-for-firms-continuing-sanctionable-commercial-transactions-with-iran-5509241.html</a></span></p>
<p><span>Simply bec though democrats under Obama were fine
with getting along with Iran, Trump is not, and so it is not
even a bi-partisan US decision, but then Iran is to be
suffocated by de-linking it from global financial grids. <br>
</span></p>
<p><span>The question for the IG-ians is: Why cant or wont
the US do the same for the Internet, its DNS and routing
systems? That isnt much more drastic than throwing a country off
global financial grids .</span></p>
<p><span>Would those who have assiduously promoted and
curated the US centred and controlled global IG model explain,
if indeed they think they owe any explanation to anyone at all!
<br>
</span></p>
<p><span>Or they can keep singing their
UN-is-the-most-evil-tunes, <br>
</span></p>
<p><span>Well, if SWIFT system had been under a appropriate
and legitimate multilateral/ UN system, this atrocity would have
been avoided. But why should people here protest, they aren't
from Iran . But you all that famous saying, 'First they came for
the...... '<br>
</span></p>
<span>parminder </span><br>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"></font><br>
</p>
<div class="m_5554677522700029873moz-cite-prefix">On 05/11/18 10:49 PM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><font face="Verdana">Hi David</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Sorry for the delay, was busy. My
responses are below ... </font><br>
</p>
<div class="m_5554677522700029873moz-cite-prefix">On 30/10/18 8:31 AM, David Cake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre">snip
Thinking of it as left/right is simplistic. </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Ian called it a lurch to the right, and I just followed up to
ask -- since this is an IG discussion list -- whether trying to
take the epicentre of global IG to the WEF was not a lurch to
the right? You dont think it is a fair question?<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre">Authoritarian governments come in both left and right varieties.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>They absolutely do.... Left -- or starting as left -- has in
fact much more than an equal share here. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre"> The UN has proved to be very good at providing a way for authoritarian governments, such as the Saudi and PRC regimes, to have strong international influence.
The UN system has the Saudis as active, influential member of the Human Rights Council - do you think that Internet Governance would be better off if regimes like KSA were more influential?
Following the UN system is to empower anti-democratic states, and thus weaken civil society. Why do you think that is leftist? </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Why would I say the UN is leftist? Not sure how you are
applying this terminology here . As for propping Saudi regimes
-- dont tell me you dont know who really props the Saudi
regime... Ok ,let me give a cue... It is the country that sits
at the top of the global governance of the Internet, both formal
kinds like the ICANN system, and informal kinds, like the
private governance run by its global corporations. BTW, just the
last month, Trump in his typically boorish way said that Saudi
regime would not exist but for the US, and this was one of the
rare moments of Trump speaking what is considerably true (with
all respect to the Saudi people). <br>
</p>
<p>So, my question is, why do you oppose the role of the UN in
global IG just bec Saudi regime is one of about 190 members of
the UN, and by turn participates in its bodies, but seem to have
no opinion on the fact the global IG is today largely run by a
country who fully props and keeps alive that regime (which will
quite well survive without the UN but not without the US)...</p>
<p>At least at the UN there is some logic for Saudi regime's
participation. It is like, say, in India (as well many other
democratic countries), there are people with criminal records in
the parliament, but for that I do not oppose the institution of
parliament itself but would like to see how at the electoral
level in the districts such a selection or election does not
take place..... But US's propping of the regime you seem to have
great problem with is for the most narrow and selfish reasons,
to get oil supplies, bec Saudi's the biggest buyers of US arms,
and one of the biggest investors inside the US, and so on....
When during the IANA transition, there was a demand at least to
get immunity for ICANN from US jurisdiction (the one that props
saudi regime), at least under its own immunity laws, I did not
hear you , or other UN haters here, at all give any opinion,
much less support..... <br>
</p>
<p>Politics is an art of the possible, in choosing between the US
and the UN to lead or anchor global IG (or, well, the WEF), my
choice is clear... What is yours? (Pl dont give me any bottom-up
fokllore, lets stay in an adults discussion, I mean lets stay
real)</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre"> Or to put it another way - why are you still simplistically equating the UN system with ‘the left’ or ‘democracy’ after all these years, when the arguments that that is a simplistic and problematic position have been made again and again, and never really answered?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I answered above, as I have often and always answered... To
which answer I am eager to hear your response ... In fact, what
you and others have never answered is how US, or global
corporate, leadership of global IG is better than the UN's?
Would you care to answer it now?</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre">The current Trumpian phenomenon is precisely the product of a trans-national elite seeking their common economic advantages often using the cover of social liberalism without economic egalitarianism -- where market without political governance was to be the defender of rights!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre"> And you won’t find many defenders of neoliberalism here - but there is some value in defending actual liberalism, such as valuing democracy over authoritarian states.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Absolutely so. Real liberalism is one the greatest achievements
of human civilisation (I am currently reading the brilliant 'The
liberal hour' by JK Galbraith) . And yes democracy has to be
valued over, and saved from, its political suppression in
authoritarianism, as well as its economic suppression in
neoliberalism. (There are people here who opposed putting the
world 'democracy' in a UNESCO IG related declaration in 2015
claiming that it 'carries baggage'! <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre">This is a direct result of promotion of an one-sided talk of human rights -- only civil and political ones and not social and economic ones, which have openly been flouted even ridiculed on , yes, IG civil society lists.... Dot ask me for real examples, bec I have followed this and I know many….
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre">Ok, take two, the very concept and not just the real implementation of 'public interest' has been ridiculed on the NCUC (of ICANN's)website, to which many CS stalwarts of IG belong.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre"> Indeed, because the concept of public interest has been coopted within ICANN to justify policies that have no real connection to the public interest, such as expansion of trademark interests. The PICS (Public Interest Commitment System) has been gravely abused to enforce policies like a globally protected trademark list that have been rejected through community policy processes. In other words, NCUC has doubts about the use of public interest arguments because they have been used to justify the sort of policies I expect you would oppose.
It is fair to say that NCUC is divided over the question of whether the public interest can be defined in a useful manner that is meaningfully defined yet limits its potential for this form of abuse. But I don’t think you would be in disagreement over the problematic use of public interest arguments. </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>People have misused the concept of democracy, in fact many
despots do so..... we do not therefore junk or question the very
term or concept of 'democracy' but question how it is
implemented or distorted... Similarly, 'public interest' is
often mis-used, but in response one does not critique or junk
the term 'public interest' but question its use or distortion,
etc. My problem is that NCUC ridiculed the term 'public
interest' on its website... To ridicule 'public interest', is to
ridicule democracy. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre">And so lets not assume innocence about this creeping death of progressive and democratic ideals that the global trans-national elite has brought on us in blind pursuit of their global economic interests (Zizek's 'Clinton not Trump is the problem' precisely captures it).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre"> And that you find neoliberalism implicitly more problematic than authoritarianism is consistent with your positions in IG, and I will continue to find authoritarianism the bigger enemy. </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Would you care to back your accusation please. I insist.
Thanks. <br>
</p>
<p>Meanwhile, let me tell what my position is: suppression of
civil and political rights is much worse than denial of social
and economic rights, and therefore authoritarianism much worse
than market fundamentalism or neoliberalism. And unlike civil
society free lancers, I work full time with a CS organisation
(IT for Change) and global networks like Just Net Coalition, Our
World is Not for Sale, and a few others... And the positions of
all these are very well explained in many documents publicly
available on their websites.. So, perhaps you will like to
educate yourself on these positions before making nasty
allegations. I hate to be making defences of such a kind, but I
have often said on lists like ISOC that for instance the social
credit system of China, the perfect embodiment of digital
governmentality, is the single biggest threat in the world right
now....</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre">Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t push away from neoliberalism back towards more liberal democratic ideas - but that is precisely why I support governance mechanisms in which civil society has a strong voice, because it allows us to have a voice in policy so it is not simply dominated by commercial and (early lobbied) government voices.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>That same multistakeholder system that stood silent when people
proposed that ICANN be given jurisdictional immunity under US's
own international organisations immunity act, and had not the
guts to speak up in front of the master!? Or the one that
happily tried to transport global IG's focal point to the WEF
vis the NetMundial initiative? It is a joke..</p>
<p>You want to know where civil society has voice... there is
something called participatory democracy, a much older concept
that multi-stakeholderism conveniently upstaged in the IG space.
It has a rich history of both theory and practice.Going through
a few pages of it will easily tell you what is wrong with IG's
MSism..</p>
<p>best, parminder <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre">
Regards
David</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_5554677522700029873mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="m_5554677522700029873moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="m_5554677522700029873moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_5554677522700029873mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="m_5554677522700029873moz-quote-pre">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="m_5554677522700029873moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="m_5554677522700029873moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></blockquote></div>