<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Doctor<br>
<br>
Thanks for the note on tenor of discussions on this list. And I am
adequately chastised. That said (there seems to always be a but with
someone like me... so please don't take it in the wrong way...),<br>
<br>
But if you look at some of the discussions there is a need for those
who raise challenges under the banner of legitimacy one can easily
discern that the courtesy you talk about is not a two way street.
And I for one have no problems with robust discussions if reason is
not the first casualty. In point of fact, I appreciate it when
people come right out and support American Exceptionalism - because
at least, as they say, it goes with the territory of being a global
power. I do wish you would level similar critiques at those who
characterise the legitimacy issue (of CIR) as<b> "internet
propaganda"</b> (when propaganda about a single root was
technically sound for many, many a year - and anyone who crit it was
like those who crit Mortgage Backed Security derivatives: simply out
of the fold!) which is about as crude and vulgar as you can get.<br>
<br>
I trust that you will also weigh in when Parminder et al put out
views that are subject to similar arguments, i.e. "A assumes that B
is X just because a part of his/her positions are like some of X,
sound like part of X, or are conflated in the reader's minds to be
like X" - examples in bold for your edification. <br>
<br>
Not only have peoples views been belittled on this list, but they
are also marginalised and put to higher standards of "proof". Sure
it is not precisely the same bunch of people - but the arguments are
repetitive and go round in circles, often with ICANN defenders
against a few lonely voices on this list. Even on recent threads,
the argument is that <b>we are back to 2003/4</b>. As if progress
has been made on<b> legitimacy</b>. <br>
<br>
So, if one expects reasonableness then it must be with an even hand
- which I trust will come forth with your guiding hand as for some
of us the legitimacy issue remains unsatisfactorily resolved - and
there is continued engagement.<br>
<br>
And lest there be no doubt. I do not mind nationalism, or favouring
market based, or self supervision or even 'if ain't broke don't fix
it' arguments - it is when there is a posse of people who support
these sentiments and make claims to universal application - when in
fact these are claims of universalism that rather do violence to
difference. Parminder has raised concerns for instance about <b>MSG
as a format</b>. These were discussed but not taken seriously -
and now that Companies have a coalition whereas public interest
civil society is rather weaker, it seems like Parminder's concerns
have borne fruit (i.e. more analytically valid in poeisis) as
compared to others, at least from my point of view.<br>
<br>
Further, it is fine to take a values based position (eg on<b>
freedom of expression</b>) regarding China, but it would be wrong
to then sublate that critique into mute when it comes to rich
country democracies. It is not reasonable to expect others to
tolerate these double standards - even if the proponents of such
views can manage these contradictions. That is the kind of party
invite one can refuse. <br>
<br>
But you are correct issues of tone could be better and I hope that
your critique can be taken <i>collectively</i> rather than merely
for those who question MSG, ICANN legitimacy etc. Its a party we can
all go to : ) Let's be optimistic about your invite, and I am happy
to play my marginal role - but not in the face of provocation
unfortunately... <br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/08/04 07:34 PM, Dr. Alejandro
Pisanty Baruch wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA725@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Courier New;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;"> Riaz,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>it is interesting that in the same breath in which you call
a number of people a "coarse and vulgar bunch", in ways that
make it difficult to separate those you mean to debase from
those you don't, you choose to characterize some subset of
people as "more Catholic than the Pope", "coarse and vulgar",
and other terms which you may guess some might find between
inadequate and offensive. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Where there may be a flaw in your argumentation is,
interestingly, where opportunity for real dialog lies. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You may imagine that positions like the ones you often
present, and their delivery, are equally alienating to others.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>One of them - and this one may cut both ways - is the
creation of a Feindbild, in which A assumes that B is X just
because a part of his/her positions are like some of X, sound
like part of X, or are conflated in the reader's minds to be
like X. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When that happens each of us may be "seeing red" and not
noticing important parts of the conversation, such as people
being equally committed to build a system and to fix its
faults. One instance would be people trying to carry on the
task of building ICANN, yet keeping it within size and
mission, and trying their best to solve the flaws of
asymmetric USG power. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tell me what I may be seeing wrong, in a similar way, in
your position, that can open up a dialogue and throw down or
at least soften the walls of the tunnel situation in which we
land again and again. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yours,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Alejandro Pisanty</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">
</font></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">!
!! !!! !!!!</font></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
font-size:small"></span></span><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">NEW
PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO</font></span></span></div>
<p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
font-size:small"></span></span> </p>
<p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">+52-1-5541444475
FROM ABROAD </font></span></span></p>
<p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">+525541444475
DESDE MÉXICO </font></span></span></p>
<p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">SMS
+525541444475 <br>
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty<br>
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico<br>
<br>
Blog: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://pisanty.blogspot.com">http://pisanty.blogspot.com</a><br>
LinkedIn: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty">http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty</a><br>
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614">http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614</a><br>
Twitter: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://twitter.com/apisanty">http://twitter.com/apisanty</a><br>
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.isoc.org">http://www.isoc.org</a><br>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . </font></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF818799" style="direction: ltr; "><font
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>Desde:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Enviado el:</b> sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:25<br>
<b>Hasta:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
John Curran<br>
<b>Asunto:</b> [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come
10 years hence?<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/08/03 03:30 PM, John
Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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 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 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 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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>