<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif;font-size:10pt"><div>Make no Mistake Dr. Paul,</div><div><br></div><div>I love a good rally. Sometimes I support stuff just to get the shirt or to meet up with friends. I still own the silkscreen that prints "Save the Gay baby Whales for Jesus". Nothing like a good cause.</div><div><br></div><div>And never should we turn away because we disagree. And anyone who says that public service announcements that may break cross posting rules are bad -- are full of themselves. Social value is not intellectual it is the manifestation of someone caring. </div><div><br></div><div>Certainly we should be cognizant of the ever encroaching globalized war against our freedoms of thought and speech and assembly and faith.</div><div><br></div><div>But we must be mindful that causes celebre should
not be run and lead by intellectual wholistic governance folk. They should be run by narrow minded zealots with soleness of purpose and a willingness to sacrifice even common sense for their cause. And likewise Internet Governance should not be swayed or pulled into directions of popularity or fad or singlemindedness. We should consider each opinion and close no doors but we should not set ourselves up in anyway as a platform for a concept that is less than universal in nature. Affirmative discrimination is only one such example.</div><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Eric Dierker
<cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sat, August 7, 2010 11:52:31 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] Seem to be Agendizing<br></font><br>
On the other hand, a "good governance" approach to the internet most<br>easily leads to reinvention of the "wheel" in terms of rights (or the<br>lack thereof, based on the failure to apply general principles of law<br>to the new context of the internet, as has happened in past new vistas<br>of technical change...)<br><br>Personally, my view is that the amount of BOTH "good governance"<br>cogitating as well as interest-based lobbying (if you will) ought to<br>be naturally minimized by the application of pre-existing rights<br>structures to the internet.<br><br>If, as someone said months ago, we are merely in the "baby steps" of<br>rights-assertion on the internet, then that is an admission of defeat<br>from the start, since we can rest assured that those asserting<br>property-based rights on the internet will not hesitate to claim them<br>in a robust and strong fashion. Failure to meet those claims with the<br>logical counter-claims for citizen
rights creates a power imbalance<br>that virtually guarantees the victory of property claims of right,<br>since by definition a right will always defeat a non-right such as an<br>interest or an equitable argument of any kind.<br><br>Paul Lehto, J.D.<br><br>P.S. "Good governance" talk can and often does consist of the<br>assertion of rights or of claims based on gender neutrality and other<br>considerations lampooned below. A seemingly "special" interest can,<br>depending on the facts, be equal to the public interest. Thus, the<br>assertion of the "rights of the poor" is not, prima facie, a case of<br>not arguing for good governance.<br><br>On 8/7/10, Eric Dierker <<a ymailto="mailto:cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net" href="mailto:cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net">cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net</a>> wrote:<br>> I just made a new word, in lines of securitization and gravitas. Whether it<br>> be<br>> differing Civil Societies or
Academics or Genderficationists or developing<br>> nationalists we are seeing a great trend toward promoting the angles and<br>> agendas<br>> of groups using Internet Governance as a platform. They are in fact<br>> Agendizing<br>> the concept. It has been a great while since I saw or heard someone offer<br>> --<br>> "this would really be a good method of governing". Generally we are seeing<br>> --<br>> "Hey Women need a voice" or "Only poverty stricken citizens need apply" or<br>> "ICANN Sucks". People are not here to forward a notion of good<br>> international<br>> governance of our, net, web, and electronic communications but rather as<br>> soldiers of some other war that requires a visit to this arena.<br>><br>> Agendizing -- The act of making a cause,,, all about me and not the cause.<br><br><br>-- <br>Paul R Lehto, J.D.<br>P.O. Box 1<br>Ishpeming, MI 49849<br><a
ymailto="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a><br>906-204-2334<br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a ymailto="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br><span> <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a></span><br><br><span>Translate this email: <a target="_blank" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br></div></div><div
style="position:fixed"></div>
</div></body></html>