<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">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><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 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 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></body></html>