<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><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><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><div><br></div><div>3. Most of the "ad hominem" was of two kinds -</div><div><br></div><div>* Comments that decided to abuse Google's other business practices (ranging from tax avoidance to monopolistic tendencies) as a substitute to addressing public policy points that Google raised. </div><div><br></div><div>* A long thread that ensued when some on the list took violent exception when the same tactic was [not] applied on actual people - but used to attempt to kickstart a discussion on propaganda. </div><div><br></div><div>And yes as you say, common sense reasserted itself on the part of most of the list, that went on to turn the points raised into a substantive discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>[... what next ...]</div><div><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 06-Dec-2012, at 16:37, 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">
McTim<br>
<br>
Well I am not about to trawl for names and their arguments, but let
me summarise - which is from my perspective: bearing in mind that
the "list" has an imbalance in what is considered balanced.<br>
<br>
When push comes to shove, as the saying goes, the argument is that
one MUST engage with ICANN to achieve some reforms of the system.
The question of legitimacy is dealt with here in two primary ways.
One, and often the most vociferous, is to "ignore" the issue of
legitimacy. The second is to say we need to reform it from within
(which simply begs the question of how they relate to those
"outside" the system - which ranges from active engagement (I was
pleasantly surprised by the candid yet studied feedback IT4C
submission received on this list :) so its not all bad) to disdain.
It is not that I question the sincerity of those who work from
within, it is the hardest to deal with insiders who seek to do what
needs to be done in the constraints they find themselves in. That
said, it also goes up and down and round and about. So it is not
just about people, but also how the context plays out. Look at a
recent thread. I and another was accused of an ad hominem attack on
a discussion that immediately went substantive. Not to put to fine a
point on it, but how does an ad hominem attack go substantive
because by definition it cannot. This imbalance in treatment of
views and personalities is incredible to watch, but from my or "our"
perspective it is easy to make deductions about the game being
played. And lets agree that ICANN and its followers are remarkable,
they stymied with single root the multiple rooters... which is
remarkable, even if one disagrees. So, it may or may not be an
explicit US Exceptionalism position, but in practice on my
deductions it is. Although there are some who put it openly as US
exceptionalism, and that is a valid and legitimate view within civil
society. But I would be silly if that were allowed and legitimacy
issues were then "excluded"/marginalised/ridiculed or even subject
to faux attacks.<br>
<br>
On rights issues there is also a disjunct between developing country
moves to assert control and Developed countries. The standards seem
to me to differ. After all it is better to live in the advanced
countries as these protections go, ain't it? That is fine as it
goes, but cannot be generalised.<br>
<br>
As much as techies may like to think this is not politics, some of
us (or simply me) take it almost all as politics. And that means
that even seemingly neutral positions are placed on a political
spectrum. <br>
<br>
But don't get your knickers in a knot about any of this because I
and some of us are happy to change our minds if persuaded of the
validity of another position or placement of a group/view on the
political spectrum... <br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/12/05 11:22 PM, McTim wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CACAaNxgDP=S5SzOnveu_0w28uhJW4Xy=+ra1=0biYcz0XnFAMg@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">Riaz,<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:05 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>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<SNIP></div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Now I have no truck
disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these approaches
differ in method as well as context, so there is room for
disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry
Milton, for some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it
must be included in the "calculation") Milton, with what I
surmise from his Institutionalism - not having read all his
work, is no different from American Exceptionalists on this
list. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can you point to any of those? I have challenged you on
this before, and from what I can see there are none (even
amongst the Americans on the list, some of whom are amongst
the strongest voices for "internationalising ICANN").</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
</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>