<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 Friday 10 August 2012 04:37 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Hi Parminder<br>
<div> </div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Aug 10, 2012, at 12:10 PM, parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <font face="Verdana">Hi
Bill,<br>
<br>
Before I engage with your surprisingly status quoist
politics,</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I was clear that I don't advocate the SQ but was noting some of
the barriers that can't just be wish away. Please don't start
with this kind of twisting things or it will go downhill
quickly.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
When someone says that anyone wanting a change has to "outline said
plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the
certainties/benefits of the SQ", and carries on at length to show -
as most of your email does - that there isnt any clear demand for
change, and when that someone is not an appointed neutral referee or
something but a political player in the arena, then that person's
politics is legitimately called as status quoist. I stick to my
position. In politics, no one is neutral, either you agree to be in
the status quo, or you are sympathetic to talk of alternatives, and
likely, have some in your mind yourself....... <br>
<br>
And when I did describe how alternatives have indeed been proposed,
unlike what you suggest, you are getting into nuances of those
alternatives, that are surely worth discussing, but here the only
point was - indeed, alternatives have been proposed, these cannot be
called as 'non-plausible' even if one has differences with them....<br>
<br>
And then you want 'evidence' from me that there indeed is support
among CS, governments, people etc... and to anything that can be
mentioned in this regard, your have responses that I can do little
about. You say a joint CS statement does not mean most people
support this position - i agree, it doesn’t 'prove' so, but what do
you want me to do, hold an referendum to satisfy you. You say
developing countries may take official positions but in private
talks most officials confess to you that they are really not
interested. You say, you are not convinced how inclusive and
multi-stakeholder is the process of building country positions.....
which all may be true.... But that kind of unending reasoning can be
used to be sceptic of every position on anything, whatever... the
world is hardly close to being perfect. You seem to have concluded -
there isnt any real demand - even in the developing world - for
change in status quo. <br>
<br>
You chose to believe those whom you speak in private etc, but these
other more open processes - joint CS statements, stated gov
positions - above do not meet your requirement of evidence.... You
see, I cant do much about that. But one thing is clear, that you
seem to infer, and want to infer, that there is not much demand for
change in status quo really in terms of CIR management. And you are
satisfied with that inference. <br>
<br>
<blockquote> Why not respond to what I was saying, rather than to
what I wasn't? (Bill)<br>
</blockquote>
I read you mostly to say, there isnt much demand for change. I found
most of the email being about it, and so my response. <br>
<br>
<blockquote>"Do you want to score points against imaginary enemies,
or have a conversation about what would be required to effectively
promote a change in the model?" (Bill)<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
We are not going to agree on who is trying to score points, but,
well, as I said I read your email mostly making the point that there
is insufficient evidence of demand for change. However, if the main
point was something else, i am happy to respond to it. You tell me
what you think "would be required to effectively promote a change in
the model" and we can go from there. (I have said it enough times
already). <br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">
let me point out some important factual untruths in your
email, mostly about me/ my positions/ activities....<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 10 August 2012 12:48
PM, William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBE9F568-E8CD-42EB-87B7-B73E53C611AA@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Hi Tom<br>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBE9F568-E8CD-42EB-87B7-B73E53C611AA@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Snip</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBE9F568-E8CD-42EB-87B7-B73E53C611AA@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>You'd also have to assemble a strong coalition of
demandeurs to even get it on the UN agenda. While
Parminder seems to be convinced that billions across the
entire global South are just seething with rage over who
signs off on zone changes, I've asked before for some
evidence of who exactly we're taking about here without
getting replies. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
So you really dont know? For instance, please see the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet">statement</a>
signed by more than 65 organisations worldwide, and more
than 125 individuals, who signed it in around just 10 days
before the May 18th meeting on enhanced cooperation. BTW,
this statement was also positively referred to a press
statement by UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural rights and
Special Rapporteur on FoE, which was entitled ' <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/press%20release%20by%20UNspecial%20rapporteur.pdf">It
is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet
today</a>' issued on the occasion on the meeting on
'enhanced cooperation'. <br>
<br>
Now, I do know for sure that you had read this joint civil
society statement because you have quoted parts of it in an
IGC discussion.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Right I read that. The signatories cannot be taken as a proxy
for "the whole global South thinks," sorry. Anyway, I was asking
about governments, particularly governments who've done proper
multistakeholder consultations so we know what they're saying
may actually reflect some semblance of public opinion rather
than just the aspirations of state elites. For example, I'm
sure you would argue that "India" thinks there's an urgent need
to multilateralize the USG functions, but I keep talking to
Indians who say they don't agree and there's been no open
consultations on the matter, it's just the preferences of a few
ministries. So I'm asking for some clarity on the head count,
and the counting methodology, in order to be able to assess your
claims better. Nothing wrong with that, one would think. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
What would be a proof to you that global South really sees
iniquitous global IG as a problem? One puts one's required
level of evidence high or low depending simply on what ones
wants to believe, or not. In fact, it is not I or IT for
Change that is living in a glass bubble, it is a form of
global civil society involved with IG which is not in
connection with what the rest of world is really thinking!<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I don't have your confidence that I know what billions of people
who've probably never heard of a root server think, or that I
can speak for them.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBE9F568-E8CD-42EB-87B7-B73E53C611AA@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> Probably one could compile an initial list of
governments at least by looking at larger, upper income
countries like the BRICS whose general diplomatic stance
is that they deserve seats at all tables commensurate
with their ascendent wealth and power, as well as
authoritarian regimes in the ME and elsewhere. Whether
all their citizens would feel the same way, know knows.
And for a lot of other countries, this is pretty far
down their list of priorities relative to other Internet
and non-internet issues. They might be persuaded to
sign onto some G77 and China statement through arm
twisting and side-payments (football stadiums seem to
work well for China) and the usual presumption that
group solidarity increases their influence, but the
level of actual commitment may vary. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You seem to notice allurements by a BRICS country very
easily, and ignore what all lengths, legitimate and
illegitimate, US and its allies go to get country votes on
their side. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I do no such thing, I'm perfectly aware that other countries
play alignment politics. The point here was trying to identify
who the dissatisfied may be.</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">And this is historical
so well known in geo-politics. For instance, the almost
unbelievable overdrive that the US admin is on currently in
trying to get countries on its side on global IG issues is
widely known. Just try to be a little more even-handed,
Bill.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
See above. When asking who is on side x, not listing who is on
side y doesn't make for unevenhandedness.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBE9F568-E8CD-42EB-87B7-B73E53C611AA@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> I know I've asked governments before about G77
statements and been told oh that's not really our
position but we have to go along with the group (have
heard this in Europe too, for that matter).</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
They are just trying to be friendly to you, Bill :). What
they speak are country positions. Dont be taken by their
polite manners…<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
And you know who I've spoken with about what and what their real
motives and thinking are because….?<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBE9F568-E8CD-42EB-87B7-B73E53C611AA@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've argued before that the only way one could really
start the conversation would be to outline said
plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less
than the certainties/benefits of the SQ. I believe
Parminder objected along the lines of this is putting
the burden on the oppressed etc but don't want to
paraphrase incorrectly and get flamed, so he can perhaps
reiterate.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, a good case of being damned if you will, and damned if
you wont! I dont know whether you are unhappy about
developing countries not positing alternatives, or about
civil society actors like my organisation. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I'm not an unhappy guy Parminder. I was just saying that I
recall you objecting to the argument that it's incumbent on
proponents of change to propose something plausible if they want
to get the conversation going. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
As for countries doing it; India proposed the CIRP proposal.
It did so precisely because India believed that for too long
the discussion has been in the air, and it needed some
concrete proposal(s) on the ground to make any movement
forward on the EC issue - a position that now you seem to be
taking. India's proposal ends with such open hearted candour
basically seeking engagement of other actors with this
proposal and keenness to listen to other views which it is
almost unusual in making such proposals.......... But I did
not find much, or any, engagement with that proposal other
than most extreme and unfair characterisations of the
proposal... On the other hand, at the process level, how
to go forward on a meaningful dialogue on the issue - IBSA
has been asking for a CSTD working group on EC since 2010
with little tractions...... (BTW, during WSIS Brazil gave
a very detailed proposal for democratising CIR management
which can be seen in a chapter by Carlos in a UN ICT Task
Force book edited by you.) What else do you want these
countries to do??? </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Carlos' chapter was good. Does it reflect official Brazilian
policy today? I don't know.</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Why so high standards
for chastity for developing countries? When you are so so
very forgiving and 'understanding' of what US does and why
wrt global IG - domestic considerations and all….<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Now I'm an advocate of chastity? Huh. Anyway, yes, the Indian
government made a proposal (which Indian CS and business people
I talked to said they had no warning of and did not support, but
anyway..). And it enjoyed quite a bit of prominence in these
parts for awhile, you cannot claim it didn't get a hearing. It
had a number of elements in it that were highly problematic (and
which reportedly led Mr. Govind to declare India was dropping
them as "not well thought out"), which opponents naturally
focused on, and some elements that might be sensible depending
on xyz factors. But overall, while I know you feel personally
invested in it, you do have to admit, there was no great rush to
the side of the proposal. Even Brazil and South Africa backed
away. Where were the others? I never heard endorsements from
other developing country governments, and recall asking you if
there had been any in the UNGA when they introduced it, since
you were following that more closely. No reply.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
It is, in fact, the so called global IG civil society that
has always failed to constructively engage with the
positions or views proposed by developing countries (even
when they are not authoritarian countries) rejecting them
summarily as simply obnoxious and not worthy to even talk
about. (And we see this tendency continue from the current
thread of discussion)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Why when I say the proponent of change should propose something
plausible do you keep turing it around to attack people with
nonsequitors? If we can stick to the issues we can talk, if
it's going to be throwing stuff at people I'm not interested.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
As for IT for Change offering alternatives; you can hardly
say we shy from doing so..... We proposed a UN Committee
like CIRP even before India did (though we did not list the
oversight function in our proposal, we were, and remain,
more interested in the functions that OECD's CCICP does), we
have proposed WG on enhanced cooperation (EC), We have
insisted on IGF discussions on EC long before the current
enthusiasm for IGF discussion on EC (whose timing and
opportunism is questionable).... At the CSTD 2012 meeting
we proposed that India's CIRP proposal be modified to take
out the oversight function, which should be taken to a
different body........ on the IGC list too, during the
'oversight' discussion in June, we proposed some models, we
encouraged Norbert to complete his proposal and commented
on, in the current thread we have been proposing means to
redistribute ownership of root ops, even yesterday in my
email to Ian I proposed the outlines of an alternative for
root zone authorisation........ You got it completely wrong
here Bill.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Got what wrong? I didn't say IT for Change hasn't made any
proposals on IG. I said to that if there's this big global
coalition of countries/peoples who are stewing over root zone
signings, please indicate who they are and how you know, so I
understand the basis of your claims; and that if you/they want
to make this the priority battle and overcome all the various
elements of resistance I noted would have to be overcome,
advancing a plausible proposal that would provide assurances to
those not already in agreement with you would be a logical first
step. I really don't see why that should agitate you or lead to
accusations that I'm issuing untruths about your position (case
unproven, BTW), putting down people who may think like you, or
turning a blind eye to problems with US policy. Why not respond
to what I was saying, rather than to what I wasn't? Do you want
to score points against imaginary enemies, or have a
conversation about what would be required to effectively promote
a change in the model?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>