<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Riaz, I like to think of myself as somewhere between the two camps and not attached to either. </div><div><br></div><div>I see (and have earlier commented on) multiple flaws in ICANN's processes and governance, and I don't have blind faith in either of those.</div><div><br></div><div>You don't see me reacting as viscerally to, say, Gurstein (or even to Karl Auerbach, with whom I've had my share of differences of opinion before on politechbot and elsewhere)</div><div><br></div><div>There is, however, a rather clear line between dialectics and propaganda. And I am afraid I tend to react very negatively when I see propaganda. Especially where it is of the sort that seeks to demonise the opposition just to score a point. </div><div><br></div><div>Without in any way comparing anybody on or off this list to a nazi, I would still like to leave this chapter from Mein Kampf here as probably the most succinct essay on the effective use of propaganda that I have ever read. And when I see these principles freely applied anywhere (in industry lobbying, in civil society 'advocacy (!)' ..) it leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html">http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 22-Nov-2012, at 20:11, Riaz K Tayob <<a href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
having been the "victim" of too robust engagement on this list, I
feel incumbent to respond...<br>
<br>
There is a difference between posting a third party article (that
might be provocative etc) and entering the fray. This is a crucial
difference that needs to be borne in mind.<br>
<br>
I will say it straight out (so there is no doubt), this list has a
predilection for ICANN (on CIR) and market/corporate views as
opposed to public interest views (of course any minority like to
feel it is special ;) and I am so glad that more even handedness is
being shown by moderators like Sala...<br>
<br>
I am not sure even Hegel would have agreed that civil society was
civil (it was aspirational), but he encouraged the dialectical (i.e.
reasoned argument) as the best way forward in civil society... So
for me the only worry is whether the arguments made can be sustained
by reason... on this list, in times not so long ago, reason was
typically a hostage in the arguments against Auerbach, Parminder,
Gurstein type arguments...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/11/22 02:54 AM, Suresh
Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1TbL3k-0000wq-9u@frodo.hserus.net" type="cite"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Right. Truthout
screeds, random allegations, accusations about "arrogance", half
truth laden polemic .. to pick a few.<br>
<br>
And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because they are
targeted at a corporation rather than individual?<br>
<br>
Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse was
actually civil. But any incivility I have committed is in
response to behavior that does not and should not characterize
civil society.<br>
<br>
So sala, thank you for your warning. <br>
<br>
--srs (htc one x)<br>
<br>
<br>
----- Reply message -----<br>
From: "Guru गुरु" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Guru@ITforChange.net"><Guru@ITforChange.net></a><br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a><br>
Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website<br>
Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM<br>
<br>
</span><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking">http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking</a><br>
<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They
believe <br>
> they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate other
States <br>
> what they have to do. Actually this not so different from the
US gov <br>
> attitude.<br>
><br>
> Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a
guarantee <br>
> of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their dominance
for <br>
> promoting their own business. And they conflate their
particular <br>
> interests with grand ideologies as free information for all.<br>
><br>
> Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would
be <br>
> swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of
using drugs, <br>
> training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art,
testimonies from <br>
> drug users telling how it changed their life for the good,
mass <br>
> campaign vilifying institutions or governments requesting
drug <br>
> control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has enough
resources <br>
> for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the market
is right".<br>
><br>
> As expected, the simple association of information and drug
will <br>
> immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating
Google <br>
> interests with freedom of information.<br>
><br>
> There was a time when the US gov would resist and break
excessive and <br>
> abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank,
telecom. <br>
> Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good for
US world <br>
> dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in the US.
Then <br>
> where are check and balance mechanisms ?<br>
><br>
> Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real
issues in <br>
> WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and
Google <br>
> knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable
balance <br>
> between stakeholders interests and profits.<br>
><br>
> Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most
dangerous <br>
> threats to information freedom are US lead secretly
negotiated <br>
> treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are
coming, <br>
> still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP,
CleanIT, <br>
> .. watch out.<br>
><br>
> Cheers, Louis<br>
> - - -<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a> <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><mailto:parminder@itforchange.net></a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:<br>
>> snip<br>
><br>
>> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open
Internet, for<br>
>> which reason it is rather awful to note that you,
meaning, Google;<br>
>><br>
>> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the
drain in the<br>
>> US, by first assuming its leadership and then
entering into a<br>
>> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main
means of<br>
>> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are
exempted<br>
>> from net neutrality provisions.<br>
>><br>
>> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements
with telecos<br>
>> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free
in some<br>
>> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special
low cost<br>
>> package exclusively of a few Internet services (and
not the full,<br>
>> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a
mockery of an<br>
>> open and net neutral Internet.<br>
><br>
> BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based<br>
> non-net-neutral services seem to have something to do
with the<br>
> betraying compromise that Google made that is mentioned
in point 1<br>
> above?<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly
the main way<br>
>> of accessing locations on the Internet, in
non-transparent ways,<br>
>> with increasing evidence that this is done in a
manner that<br>
>> merely serves your own commercial interests and goes
against<br>
>> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons
Google is<br>
>> currently subject to regulatory investigations in the
US and EU.<br>
>><br>
>> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and
small, including<br>
>> the fact that today I suddenly see my default
browser getting<br>
>> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used
Mozilla<br>
>> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.)<br>
>><br>
>> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation
of the<br>
>> Internet to be able to check such excesses by
Internet companies<br>
>> that are deeply compromising the openness of the
Internet<br>
>> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of
the<br>
>> Internet, used in above appeal by Google).<br>
>><br>
>> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus
ITU, not even,<br>
>> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content
regulation; it<br>
>> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space
so that<br>
>> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players,
can have a<br>
>> free run over the economic, social and political
resources of the<br>
>> world.<br>
>><br>
>> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to
keep<br>
>> In
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br><span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br><span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br><span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>