<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks Daniel for this. You put it succinctly, that power does
matter a great deal - and it may not be all that matters, but it is
the determining factor in many instances... <br>
<br>
Using this analysis/perspective it is possible to categorise the
various strands of views on CIR and internet governance,: namely the
evolutionists, the Social Darwinists (as distinct from the
evolutionists) which is quite vogue on this list for ethical or
pragmatic reasons, realists, pragmatists... and also helps to locate
where the reformists (accomodationist reform, or transformative)
regarding CIR...<br>
<br>
Yours is a better stated position than most because of its clarity
and simplicity. Not that I agree, but it is stated in a way without
obfuscation of issues... it is one thing to say power matters, it is
quite another to say there is an ethical basis for the power (which
some reformists use to coat the NECESSITY of engagement)... when
this is clearly understood, then those with ethical positions can
certainly call to task the ethics of the reformists who engage... <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/09/11 03:33 PM, Daniel Kalchev
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:504F2FAF.1010904@digsys.bg" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 11.09.12 14:24, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:504F1F71.3000708@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 11 September 2012 03:54
PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:504F116B.1040400@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Parminder<br>
<br>
One can put is also differently... if it is just US law then
it does have de facto global application...</blockquote>
<br>
Of course, it is so. Riaz. The exceptions to general rule of
national territoriality of jurisdictions has mostly been to US's
benefit, given its global power. The principle target of my
argument was the proposition that other countries, especially
developing ones, could exercise their jurisdiction, to a
significant extent, over an US based institution. I simply see
no basis for it.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is one fundamental problem with exercising one's
sovereignty: you remain isolated.<br>
Example: the former "East Block" -- it has all the sovereignty it
desired but it came with certain isolation from the rest of the
world.<br>
Other examples are the various countries that experiment with
their sovereignty only to discover they are subject to some sort
of embargo.<br>
The world has always been this way, since "laws" exist. Most laws
have as their primary purpose to restrict the individual's freedom
(their ability to exercise their very own sovereignty) in exchange
for "public good" promises etc.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:504F1F71.3000708@itforchange.net"
type="cite"> While on the issue, exceptions to international law
have also mostly been exercised by the US, again, because of its
global power.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Everyone discovers one day that justice is always on the side of
the stronger party. It has been so for millenniums.<br>
It is the lion that eats the gazelle and would not care less if
the gazelle intends to exercise it's sovereignty in any way.<br>
<br>
A while ago we discussed what everyone and anyone can do to behave
on Internet. Many people mistakenly believe that ICANN has any
powers when it comes to operation of the Internet. ICANN is just a
forum. Even if you could usurp an forum, that won't change
anything.<br>
<br>
If someone wants their country to become important player in
Internet, then just make it so: invest in whatever infrastructure
and services it takes and that country will be important player in
Internet.<br>
Typically, insistence by strangers that they should control
something, that someone else built is ignored -- unless those
strangers turn out to be the prevailing party...<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>