<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/08/03 03:30 PM, John Curran
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>
<div>On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org">jcurran@istaff.org</a>>
wrote:</p>
<p>
> After all, the USG has seen the transition from
top-down formal contracting for these <br>
> functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder
management of critical Internet <br>
> resources, including the decentralization of IP address
management to the RIRs, the<br>
> formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the
Affirmation of Commitments. </p>
<p>Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people
know that it takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root
server? A few among the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC
participants. In a world of sensational headlines on
unilateral control of the root, all these positive goodness
is buried in fine print. The gestures I have talked about
would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines.</p>
</blockquote>
<div>If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR
with regards to its positive</div>
<div>steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I
would not argue with that...</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
PR is one thing. Disinterested discourse in civil society is quite
another. There are many who take an ICANN line, defending the
"faith" - and are try to be more Catholic than the pope.
Effectiveness arguments are INSUFFICIENT regarding claims of
legitimacy. And of course in civil society ICANN "loyalists" (paid
hacks or genuine believers) are overal IMHO rather coarse and vulgar
bunch (needs be said). So there PR is one thing, and civil society
engagement (based on reason - which is not too high a standard to
cope with diversity) another. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>
> None of the above would have been possible coming from
"a posture of total unwillingness"...</p>
<p>So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the
common man in a carefully archestrated propaganda of
misleading 'headlines' that appears to me to be a
psychological campaign with carefully calculated omissions.
</p>
</blockquote>
<div>Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or
misrepresent the USG track record in </div>
<div>facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since
inception of the Internet. Like</div>
<div>many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do
believe that has been an enabler of</div>
<div>discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder
governance which might easily not</div>
<div>have otherwise occurred.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ah but one cannot just take a single type of approach to this.
Dialectically (in the Hegelian sense) MSG has been seen by some as a
good alternative to actually doing something about the legitimacy
issue. Name calling (anti-Internet propaganda sounds so similar to
"there can be only one root") has been the forte of the coarse and
vulgar, and ab initio takes the wind out of the sails of any genuine
engagement/arguments. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>>> As an answer to all these undesirable
distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10
years or less or more later ?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come
from the USG, as opposed<br>
> the Internet community itself?</p>
<p>:-)</p>
</blockquote>
<div>Thanks for raising this important topic!</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The issue is that the combined might (i.e. power) of USG, ICANN
(employees, hacks & believers & wannabe's) in an MSG
institutional setting (where scant regard is given for corporate
domination - perhaps because of the "quaint" definition of "private
sector" in the US that includes both non-profit and for-profit)
kinda makes it hard to have a civilised reasonable discussion about
these topics.<br>
<br>
Yeah, people engage up to a point... so this needs to be said - just
so that there is no doubt: if one does not conflate technical
(effectiveness) with social then the legitimacy argument has and
continues to have merit. And issues of where is your evidence or
technical precision, are often (not always) raised, but NOT as a
means to deal with the issue - but to fob it off. Now some on this
list may present themselves as playing the game (because that is how
the game is played)... not all are convinced by that wonderful
alleged Bushism (elected 2x btw;), you can fool some of the people
some of the time and those are the ones you should concentrate on. <br>
<br>
While some/few (in case there are others of my persuasion - but
speaking for myself only) of us know our relative powerless, and
very aware of the sophisticated hounding of our views, <u>we do
believe in the reality of choice</u>, and engagement to bring
about changes in an evolutionary way... so the real test will be
weather these communication of technical details can actually stand
up to being "neutral" in terms of legitimacy... after all Cassandra
did warn about the Trojan Horse... <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher
altitudes may lack coherence;</div>
<div>use at your own risk.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>