<div>Who determines what is off topic and what is not? </div>
<div> </div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM, McTim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">This is actually nothing to do with Internet Governance...not even remotely.<br><br>It's completely Off-Topic for this list AND the original posting<br>
contained a Godwin, so let's let it rest, eh? We have actual<br>important topics to discuss.<br><font color="#888888"><br>--<br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br>On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<br><<a href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Respectfully, that is your presumption. You cannot presume to know what my<br>
> expectations are. That being said, I would proffer that each context is<br>> different and that is why I had raised the questions I had raised initially.<br>><br>> :)<br>><br>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM, David Goldstein<br>
> <<a href="mailto:goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au">goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>> Oh this is just balmy... next you'll expect that a newspaper or other<br>>> publication to follow the views of readers expressed in vox pops or opinion<br>
>> polls they conduct before they write an editorial.<br>>> ________________________________<br>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <<a href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; David Goldstein<br>>> <<a href="mailto:goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au">goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au</a>><br>>> Cc: Paul Lehto <<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>>; Rui Correia<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:correia.rui@gmail.com">correia.rui@gmail.com</a>>; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza<br>>> <<a href="mailto:caffsouza@gmail.com">caffsouza@gmail.com</a>><br>>> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 2:54:55 PM<br>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over<br>>> WHO must be Transparent)<br>>><br>>> At the heart of the matter, is the "bottom line", Who pays for the ads and<br>
>> sponsors its publications? Is it susceptible to being banned? Is it afraid<br>>> of being "controversial" and I suppose that as a magazine, the editors can<br>>> do what they want.<br>>><br>
>> Respectfully, David I beg to differ. I think the issue that Paul raised is<br>>> at the heart of the Internet Governance Debate (political basket) even if<br>>> indirectly. Yes, the magazine can invoke its exclusionary clause and<br>
>> exercise its discretion by virtue of the disclaimer that it incorporates but<br>>> the resounding message that it sends to its readers is a resounding:-<br>>><br>>> 1) thank you for purchasing Time Magazine, we enjoy bringing you news and<br>
>> getting you to pay for it;<br>>> 2) we cannot afford to be seen as "siding" with anyone who is a threat to<br>>> US National Security and risk being sanctioned.<br>>><br>>> This raises issues of "transparency" and if polling takes place via the<br>
>> internet, then of course it is "discussion" worthy. Below is an article from<br>>> the NYT:-<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> Breaking News Alert<br>>> The New York Times<br>
>> Wed, December 15, 2010 -- 9:08 PM ET<br>>> -----<br>>> U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks Founder<br>>> Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the<br>>> WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge<br>
>> dissemination of classified government documents, are looking<br>>> for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an<br>>> Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the<br>>> information.<br>
>> Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether<br>>> Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc.<br>>> Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State<br>>> Department files from a government computer system. If he did<br>
>> so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in<br>>> the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents<br>>> who then published them.<br>>> Read More:<br>>> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?emc=na" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?emc=na</a><br>
>><br>>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Goldstein<br>>> <<a href="mailto:goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au">goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au</a>> wrote:<br>>>><br>>>> Oh for god's sake, why can't Time choose someone as their person of the<br>
>>> year<br>>>> different to their readers?<br>>>><br>>>> Under what circumstances are the editors and those who chose the person<br>>>> of the<br>>>> year bound by any reader support?<br>
>>><br>>>> To think that Time as a magazine, who made it clear they reserved the<br>>>> right to<br>>>> disagree with their readers, should not be capable of making their own<br>>>> choice is<br>
>>> frankly stupid.<br>>>><br>>>> David<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> ----- Original Message ----<br>>>> From: Paul Lehto <<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Rui Correia <<a href="mailto:correia.rui@gmail.com">correia.rui@gmail.com</a>><br>>>> Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza <<a href="mailto:caffsouza@gmail.com">caffsouza@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 11:58:15 AM<br>>>> Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO<br>>>> must<br>>>> be Transparent)<br>>>><br>>>> For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of<br>
>>> the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is<br>>>> astounding.<br>>>><br>>>> First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time<br>>>> Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in<br>
>>> first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person<br>>>> of the Year:<br>>>><br>>>> 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg<br>>>> rating (all voters)<br>
>>> 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80%<br>>>> 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%)<br>>>> 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%)<br>
>>> [snip]<br>>>> 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%)<br>>>> 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%).<br>>>> 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%)<br>
>>> 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%)<br>>>> [snip]<br>>>> See<br>>>><br>>>> <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html</a><br>
>>><br>>>><br>>>> SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR?<br>>>><br>>>> Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the<br>
>>> direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of<br>>>> the Year reserve the right to disagree."<br>>>><br>>>> And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are<br>
>>> their own readers and customers.<br>>>><br>>>> With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the<br>>>> 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than<br>
>>> one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and<br>>>> got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for<br>>>> Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange).<br>>>> <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html</a><br>
>>><br>>>> But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than<br>>>> choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the<br>>>> Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10<br>
>>> Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated:<br>>>><br>>>> Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful,<br>>>> while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency<br>
>>> (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average<br>>>> people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government<br>>>> officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens<br>
>>> in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier<br>>>> for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens<br>>>> who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook<br>
>>> friends."<br>>>><br>>>> TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely<br>>>> stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal<br>>>> endorsement.<br>
>>><br>>>> But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social<br>>>> media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless<br>>>> had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a<br>
>>> Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of<br>>>> accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and<br>>>> corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange.<br>
>>><br>>>> Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force<br>>>> transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the<br>>>> master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever<br>
>>> asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or<br>>>> slave entity.<br>>>><br>>>> Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore<br>
>>> its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling<br>>>> when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to<br>>>> the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and<br>
>>> Wikileaks.<br>>>><br>>>> In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters<br>>>> and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues<br>>>> to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of<br>
>>> transparency sometimes called robust criticism.<br>>>><br>>>> Paul Lehto, J.D.<br>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>>>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>>><br>>>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>>>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>>>><br>
>>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>>><br>>>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>>>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
>>><br>>>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>>><br>>><br>>> --<br>>> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro<br>
>> P.O.Box 17862<br>>> Suva<br>>> Fiji Islands<br>>><br>>> Cell: +679 9982851<br>>> Alternate Email: <a href="mailto:s.tamanikaiwaimaro@tfl.com.fj">s.tamanikaiwaimaro@tfl.com.fj</a><br>
>><br>>> "Wisdom is far better than riches."<br>>><br>>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro<br>> P.O.Box 17862<br>> Suva<br>> Fiji Islands<br>><br>
> Cell: +679 9982851<br>> Alternate Email: <a href="mailto:s.tamanikaiwaimaro@tfl.com.fj">s.tamanikaiwaimaro@tfl.com.fj</a><br>><br>> "Wisdom is far better than riches."<br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>><br>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro<br>
P.O.Box 17862<br>Suva<br>Fiji Islands<br><br>Cell: +679 9982851<br>Alternate Email: <a href="mailto:s.tamanikaiwaimaro@tfl.com.fj">s.tamanikaiwaimaro@tfl.com.fj</a><br><br>"Wisdom is far better than riches."<br>