<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Parminder<br>
<br>
Since the Indian Minister thread is "tired", I thought this might be
more apt for our convo as if others are not here... which is "open"
to others... <br>
<br>
If we take an evolutionary perspective to change, and a political
economy i.e. to achieve change necessarily means replacing a
radical view with one of reform - then the educative process on root
servers was useful, and is just a beginning of an issue that has
been smothered time and time again. What strikes me is how the
elements of the technical side have evolved, and how flexible some
of the arrangements actually are at some levels and how the
technical arguments can be dialectically used for the status quo
(stability) and against it (flexibility, anycast, etc). And as
Conrad puts it, political agendas are fine if there is precision -
which is just what is needed. <br>
<br>
On Drake and others, I think evolutionary change is precisely
experimental. As every general view needs to be refined until it
resolves itself into a crisp demand capable of legal or policy
rendering. There is not one conception of legitimacy, and it can
begin slowly (that is why some of the 'single root believers'/'anti
CIR discussion' case is belied by changes by ICANN et al made),.
Arguments against CIR legitimacy have come in many shades, ranging
from you can't have more than one root through to there are too many
players to change these matters through to "USA!USA! USA!"<br>
<br>
Burying CIR as many wish to, based on a political judgement of
impossibility, has its merits (at the first IGF this was done with
only the BBCs Nick Gowing being allowed to raise the issue with none
other than Vint Cerf - at a non-binding forum) especially if it
opens up spaces to discuss other issues. Thomas has put forward a
proposal that may well be a starting point for keeping the issue of
legitimacy of CIR on the agenda. While the most dirty tricks have
been played to detract attention from this issue (which makes
remarkable coincidence with those whose political assessment is that
change on this is impossible, mentioned so that those who care to be
sensitive and open can understand and perhaps take some heed), a <i>process
solution</i> to keep the flame burning allows a number of things.
Others can then also work on different issues of importance. And
those with an interest in this matter can pursue it. The only
reservation I have is with the reactionaries of the anti-legitimacy
crowd (I desist from mob, after all they seem not be part of the
great unwashed if you get my drift ;) and so you should plan
accordingly including being morose/hard
ass/difficult/contrary/nice/abivalent/etc (Practically this would
mean that ALL processes/panels/discussions need not be "balanced" -
that there be space for broadening - discussions that are balanced -
and deepening - one sided discussions that take CIR governance as
illegit, or technical courses on architecture). Conrad especially,
and others even with whom you/we disagree, have shown not only
generosity but openness to engage and this at least is civil if
robust. But perhaps some of the marginals like Auerbach could be
drawn back in as well - this is quite essential, imho, if as a
community we are to regard ourselves as inclusive rather than merely
likeminded with a few token dissenters. <br>
<br>
As we know, the danger here is that other issues will be used as
Weapons of Mass Distraction - a danger that one merely be aware of,
perhaps in the Chinese sense, you could allow them to save some
face. <br>
<br>
On saving face, I think here we need to let people ride in the front
of the bus so to speak. In these matters of political judgement,
there are simply forks in the road where we have to agree to
disagree. Many are more comfortable with their own governments than
with others, and issues tend to be more contestable in the rich
countries than in ours. However, I think there is also some level of
arrogance that goes with such views, which should not be forgotten.
And the people expressing them may not be arrogant, but they need to
be aware of context, so...<br>
<br>
I do not think that USers often appreciate how dangerous Bush's
retrospective legislation on telecoms companies revealing data sans
court order was in legal terms (retrospectivity in law is quite an
exception) or that the PATRIOT act will only really end its reign
until the US signs a peace treaty with terrorism. Even on matters of
corruption, on everything from the derivatives scandals to LIBOR we
see that there are different forms of corruption/deceit/oppression
Southerners are country bumpkins when it comes to ripping stuff off
compared to Northerners (and by the way tax write offs for bribes to
South countries used to exist until very recently in the rich
countries): 23 trillion for bankers while Barofsky of TARP says the
government/Geithner was not interested in sorting out foreclosures
or helping home owners (which were about a 3 trillion problem in the
US). But some lessons one has to learn the hard way and no amount of
talk or data will make the case that some political oversight and
contestability in issues may not be a bad thing (a refrain often
used on the poor countries to improve their governance). I will not
even go into Wikileaks. I mention this not to pique differences, but
merely to highlight the point that if Southerners need to
acknowledge the governance problems then a double standard should
not be applied when it comes to the North. The ticket for
participation in civil society is reason, and so goose and gander
stuff applies here... even if we acknowledge that many things are
better handled in the North (some issues are simply acceptable
unsayable as Drake points out CIR, or as Friends of the Earth on
the US climate change/Kyoto Protocol - so there are lots finicky
politicking that needs also be acknowledged if difference is taken
seriously). <br>
<br>
And it is not ONLY that something big and bad that is the problem -
in which MAD is a counterbalance. It is the subtle abuse that can
creep into the system (like potential misdirection based on resolve
requests timing as Auerbach points out, etc) - and like me, your
experience in civil society on these issues does not need any
instruction on how corrosive subtle continual vilification, abuse,
marginalisation can be - and this can be the same for governance of
CIR. This is NOT about hypotheticals at all. It is about a resource
that serves a global public good function whose stability and
development is in the public interest - and even if people disagree
(forks) a negative inference cannot be made of those who raise
legitimacy as public interest. Nor can any claims to universalism be
made that are definitive for either side. It is contested, and
therefore in civil society MUST be contestable. <br>
<br>
The essential problem always is, who guards the guardians. There
are two views here:<br>
<br>
1) there is not the ability to guard - which is a valid proposition
(i.e. US will never do it, it is complicated, the operators will not
agree - all valid from some perspective or level of abstraction).
And we must do what we can. However there ought also to be space for
those who want Pessimism of the intellect (technicalities,
precision) and optimism of the will (no i-admin w/out reptn),
suffices... <br>
<br>
2) there is no interest /need to guard. These people usually indict
themselves imho as time flows...<br>
<br>
Great stuff for the India Minister discussion and all who
contributed...! <br>
<br>
Peace<br>
<br>
riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>