<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<br>
<br>
On Monday 13 June 2011 01:00 AM, McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=iv-K6G6QKiddBpzCVbjJ3rdLFYw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:46 AM, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">McTim, my response are below
On Wednesday 08 June 2011 08:08 PM, McTim wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I dont ignore 'the truth of your replies'. The problem you always seem to
speaking about a personal definition of 'internet governance' which I dont
share and neither does largely the world, as also the IGC. For you IG is
developing standards, protocols and processes for management of critical
internal resources, or the logical layers of the Internet, and *nothing
else*.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Simply not true.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
So many times, in middle of key IG discussions focussed on the
'larger' IG issues (and the corresponding forums or institutional
possibilities) and not the technical administration kind, you have
asked us to leave aside those things and come to where 'real IG
takes place'. These are your exact words that pop up so very often
on this list. But now you are disclaiming that you dont consider
stuff outside this narrow IG definition as not the 'real IG'. Well,
in any case, this is some progress and we can try to build on it. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=iv-K6G6QKiddBpzCVbjJ3rdLFYw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Your 'working models' correspond *only* to this narrow definition of
Internet governance. And I am almost always referring to the broader, more
political IG issues. You never ever acknowledge the governance needs of
these issues which most concern most of us here, much less come up with
working models for them.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I have often suggested that we use the same model used in narrow
governance issues for the broader IG realm.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Have you? This again confounds me. Can you re state those models you
have in mind to address the issues of the 'broader IG realm', the
kind of issues that are on the IGF's agenda? Since you support
multistakeholderism (MSism), if you really were for extending such
MS models to addressing these 'broader IG issues' you should be
supporting increasing the policy shaping role or power of the IGF.
However, I have heard you consistently oppose any such thing, and
oppose it bitterly. Can you explain this paradox? And so if IGF does
not fit your idea of a MS model to address and help solve these
broader IG issues, what model are you suggesting as above. please
elaborate. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=iv-K6G6QKiddBpzCVbjJ3rdLFYw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
So, you are as guilty of the 'deep silences' I
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">spoke about. And your repeated references to 'I am right now working on the
Afrinic list' and 'why dont all of you come and join us' simply do not speak
to the issue I am raising here.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
It does. You spoke about "Deeper or participatory democracy is about
getting in voices that are less powerful and less heard otherwise into
the political processes."
I was simply showing you that those CS voices are being heard.
</pre>
</blockquote>
They may be heard for rather narrow technical admin work, but not
for real big IG stuff which are decided among the big business and
the powerful governments of the North. That us our struggle, and
your general contribution to us is to advice us to leave that debate
or struggle and come to 'where real IG takes place', by which you
mean the kind of work that gets done on the elists involved with
technical administration of the Internet. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=iv-K6G6QKiddBpzCVbjJ3rdLFYw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Tunis agenda had a good phrase for the distinction we are talking about '
public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day
technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international
public policy issues.'
Maybe we can call the 'the day-to-day technical and operational matters,
that do not impact on international public policy issues' as Internet
Administration (IA) to distinguish them from the wider and more political IG
issues that are the main concern of most of us, and of the IGF etc.
However, before this semantic (or is it just semantic?) problem is sorted
out between us, I cant see how a meaningful dialogue can be pursued.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I don't know if it is just semantic or not, it seems that you have
suggested (in the past) that the way Facebook operates, for example
ought to be subject to international oversight of some kind, whereas I
see their policies as largely "operational" in nature.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Good you took up this example. While you think Facebook's policies
and its architecture, which determines and constrains a considerable
share of global interactions today is merely a 'operational' issue,
I do think it is an outstandingly important social, political,
cultural and economic issue. and I think most on this list agree.
Vittorio posted an email on another list a couple of months back
about how kids in Italy nowadays often have only facebook on their
mobiles and nothing else. For them facebook is the Internet. And if
it bothers you not at all that the facebook space is proprietary,
closed and non-transparent, and thus expectedly is architectured to
suit powerful economic and political interests, then indeed we do
have major differences. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=iv-K6G6QKiddBpzCVbjJ3rdLFYw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>