<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Suresh<br>
<br>
Will be brief, but been over this many times on this list.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/12/06 01:17 PM, Suresh
Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1D269D03-6D5C-4223-A0C4-188B0579C2BD@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>Riaz bhai, can you please make this a bit clearer? I tried
hard, but .. I can't quite see your point.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. What is wrong with change from within, in ICANN, or
anywhere else? And do you see any barriers to participation at
ICANN? Compared to say participation at the IGF, WCIT, or
wherever else?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is nothing wrong with collaboration, change from within or
dealing with extant ICANN. LIkewise there is nothing wrong in
regarding it as a despotic organisation hell bent on maintaining its
pre-eminence and has a large number of people in toe to do its
bidding irrespective of how "functional" it is. <br>
<br>
If one takes legitimacy and/or participation/inclusiveness seriously
then <b>the relationship between the inside and the outside</b>
(those who exercise their democratic rights NOT to "join" the ICANN
system) becomes serious. <br>
<br>
And the way this is dealt with on this list leaves a lot to be
desired.<br>
<br>
Just look at how tedious discussions provoked by the "usual
suspects" Gurstein, Parminder, Guru, Auerbach, Norbert are ... some
issues are subject to inquisitions, while others views are not. I
don't care either way as reason is the ticket for engagement and as
long as that is the tenor I/we can deal with things; and agree to
disagree,<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1D269D03-6D5C-4223-A0C4-188B0579C2BD@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<div><br>
2. If a technology is technically infeasible and risky from an
engineering standpoint, it remains that way unless work is
actually done on the technology. Doing a socio political
analysis of the technology will not alter it one whit, or make
it any more or less feasible than it already is.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Let me deal with the Luddite in me. What you say is true. But Lessig
makes the point (long time since I read him, but well worth a read)
that the matter is not so black and white as it seems. The tech can
and is often policy. They are mutually constitutive. This makes more
sense, than saying well web URL is a trade mark. Engineering nor
legally was this the case. Yet it is largely now. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1D269D03-6D5C-4223-A0C4-188B0579C2BD@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. Most of the "ad hominem" was of two kinds -</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We can differ on this. All I am doing implicitly is pointing to how
imbalanced the claims of imbalance are from those who claim to be
standing for balance. I trust I make myself obscure.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>