<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
First (not on your post, but provoked by it) of all we could embrace
some of the complexity of the situation and have people state their
views without calling for the silencing of others' views (othering
iow) - that not all those who support Assange's asylum request are
against the complainants, are conspiracy theorists nor trying to
introduce unrelated issues into this sphere (we merely respond to
the invitation of Exceptionalism)... iow some decorum instead of
pushing people with different (and credible - i.e. capable of being
entertained without being accepted) world views into a defensive
corner.<br>
<br>
Second, some clarity on facts (like reality, which has some
consistency) would be ok. When Assange claims political asylum of
course he is skipping bail. But asylum is granted to those with a
well founded fear of persecution. In UK he is a criminal, in Ecuador
he is not. To simply insist that the rich North countries are better
does not take the argument further. Then to stoop to namecalling
(conspiracy theorist, callous about rape - or alleged rape, etc) as
a tactic is just nonsense.<br>
<br>
There are many people who see the need for dealing with issues of
legitimacy. But civil society on this list seems to arrogate to
certain groups/individuals/world views that authority to tell others
not only what to think and how to think. If (and not speaking for
others, but with some identification - with which they can disagree)
Parminder et al were to adopt the tone of our critics then on issues
like the Great Fire Wall of China we could namecall too and say
racists (invitation - review China discussions with what was said
about the North and see for yourself), what would happen to
discussion and debate? We could even call out about coconuts (no one
makes claims about the South or Third World being homogenous). But,
with restraint, we largely refrain and simply point to double
standards, which with reason can be worked through (of course no
point engaging when you are not open to even entertain others ideas,
or that newbies on this list seem to get scared about sharing info
or their openness is read as siding with a particular view). When
American Exceptionalism is introduced as a rational, we discuss it -
and this list is remarkable for it robustness - and is free from
constrained political correctness. If Assange is irrelevant then
analogously so is AExcep as a rationale for DOC/ICANN/IANA
domination of CIR. But no one seems to make this link which follows
logically (as the argument goes)... <br>
<br>
And imho there seems to be a "majority" (perhaps of posters to this
list) that seemingly support (albeit critically) ICANN (failing to
see that non-participation with it but participation with UN
structures is a democractic choice) win out as if majority is the
only determinant of legitimacy. That is why there are Bills of
Rights - which ALSO operate as countermajoritarian devices - some
things, like racism are just not on despite what the majority may
want or think, or that in international relations legitimacy is as
important as effectiveness. <br>
<br>
It is tragic that we have to deal with idiocy (in the classical
sense - those who do not engage in democracy) and have to repeatedly
assert that we have the right to define the debate in 'our' own
terms (eg legitimacy vs/AND effectiveness).<br>
<br>
More specifically, on what would "open eyes" I am not sure. As it is
difficult. We do need to handle complexity which means handling
contradictions - as some who do engage claim to do when they engage
in ICANN etc. But simply because one group finds a particular set of
contradictions acceptable does not mean that they are universally
applicable. Those who insisted on only a single root then go on to
complain about technical "incompetence" of others. I mean, how does
one go about engaging on let alone resolving these kinds of first
principle double standards?<br>
<br>
Some of these issues can be managed in at least the form and manner
of debate , but I think it is high time that those who call for
balance in support of their world view take a principled/ethical
stance to engagement on this list without seeking to question the
right of others to shape debates as they see fit (barring of course
completely banal contributions). The link between bona fides of
American Exceptionalism and IG have been made apposite on this list.
To merely insist that it is not is not debate, and moves to impose
silence should be dealt with with balance and even handedness. And
with what passes for acceptable discourse on this list, it is a hard
core rebuttal unfortunately... and if people don't like it, they can
bump me off this list or perhaps then give only as good as they are
prepared to get... eye for an eye and all that... <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/08/20 02:43 PM, Chaitanya
Dhareshwar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEP5zKQX3gq-z+2-RjrdneoKR1knqWTZW1YS3uVT0tFwXWodQg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Diplomatic "indignity" is what we're left with just now. Sad
situation indeed. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>What would open their eyes? (not suggesting anything here) A
petition? Signature campaign? Protest march? "Satyagraha"
movement? riots? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>-C<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Riaz K
Tayob <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com" target="_blank">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"
class="gmail_quote">And the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Immunity be damned (they UK threated to storm foreign
territory, which is what an embassy is)? Which certainly has
implications for faith in American Exceptionalism as a basis
for CIR control.<br>
<br>
So I guess the taking of American hostages in Iran at the time
of the overthrow of the American approved despot (the Shah) in
the 1970s would be ok, retrospectively?<br>
<br>
Funny, he skipped bail but is willing to fulfil the claims for
questioning on terms that do not expose him to the threat of
extradition. Extradition to the US may involve treatment like
Bradley Manning has received in US prison - long periods of
solitary confinement. This kind of treatment is against the EU
Bill of Rights, the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur on
Torture and regarded as unlawful (i.e. cruel and degrading
punishment) even by the New York Bar Association.<br>
<br>
You see, if I don't like your principles on this matter, I
have others... so for me it is completely specious to start of
irrespective of extradition threat... its kinda like saying:
irrespective of the REAL threat of torture and/or cruel and
degrading punishment... which as you can surmise from my
position is a non starter . . .<br>
<br>
... and I will as always simply remain amazed at the
robustness of discussion on this list . . . which is
refreshing for its candour, of which we can all freely take
part...
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 2012/08/20 07:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"
class="gmail_quote">
In message <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:502F5826.4000506@gmail.com"
target="_blank">502F5826.4000506@gmail.com</a>>, at
10:53:58 on Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com" target="_blank">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>>
writes<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"
class="gmail_quote">
The police presence, it added, had risen from two or
three to around 50, with officers on the embassy's
fire escape and at every window.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I haven't been following the main thread so apologies if
this is a repeat: Irrespective of any threat to
extradite him, let alone the Wikileaks episode, Assange
is a plain and simple fugitive from a UK court (he's
skipped bail).<br>
<br>
The British Police would be roundly criticised if they
let him escape through a back window in the middle of
the night and make off across Hyde Park.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>