<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Au contraire SRS<br>
<br>
He called the internationalism phony- it is even highlighted with
quotes. <br>
<br>
Are you exacerbating matters here? Precision counts in a charge like
this. What's your game?<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/12/07 09:27 AM, Suresh
Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1TgsLR-0007g3-Rk@frodo.hserus.net"
type="cite"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Parminder, if you
persist in using terms like phony to refer to McTim and then
call the list police down on Milton for allegedly being rude to
you, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. <br>
<br>
--srs (htc one x)<br>
<br>
<br>
----- Reply message -----<br>
From: "parminder" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@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] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"...
(from taxes?<br>
Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 12:39 PM<br>
<br>
</span><br>
<br>
On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
><br>
> Riaz,<br>
><br>
> Like Parminder, you’ve overused this charge of “American <br>
> exceptionalism,” to the point where it reflects more on you
than on <br>
> the target. Indeed if you, like Parminder, apply it to me it
shows <br>
> that you are completely ignorant of my writings on the
subject or that <br>
> you are simply hurling a blanket epithet at whoever is
standing <br>
> around, whenever they disagree. So, no point in discussing
further.<br>
><br>
<br>
Milton,<br>
<br>
Dont know why you are pulling me into this out of nowhere .... but
if <br>
you want me to come in, here i am, at your service :)<br>
<br>
(BTW, I must first say that I find your recent comments to Riaz <br>
extremely rude, and I hope that the concerned duty bearers are
taking note.)<br>
<br>
So, you object to the use of the term 'US exceptionalism'! You are
on <br>
record asserting repeatedly that you think ICANN should continue
to be <br>
subject to US laws, at least in the areas of regulation of
non-profits, <br>
competition and FoE...... presumable more...... (in any case an
entity <br>
is either subject to a jurisdiction, or it is not; there are no
choices <br>
available for an entity to be subject to some laws and not
others).<br>
<br>
Have you not said so? Please do let us know if you havent, and
even if <br>
you have changed your mind now.<br>
<br>
In the above regard you dont even agree with those who seek, what
I call <br>
as, 'phoney internationalisation' (McTim's case) whereby ICANN <br>
internationalisation is sought without being able to suggest any <br>
credible institutional basis for doing it. (You are perhaps too <br>
politically clued-in and can make out that such phony <br>
internationalisation without providing the political-
institutional <br>
basis for it is simply not possible.)<br>
<br>
You however do not agree for ICANN to be subject to international
law, <br>
or laws of other countries (do you agree to ICANN shifting to New
<br>
Delhi?) , and you want it to be subject to US laws. Now that is <br>
literately 'US exceptionalism', isnt it! I cant see how the term
can be <br>
applied more accurately than in this case.....<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
> *From:*governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org <br>
> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] *On Behalf Of
*Riaz K Tayob<br>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:06 PM<br>
> *To:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Dominique Lacroix<br>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet
Freedom!"... <br>
> (from taxes?<br>
><br>
> Frankly I am not sure what kind of institutionalist Milton
is. This is <br>
> not the Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Rayomond, Richard Ely, E
Pershine <br>
> Smith, Frederich List and JK Galbraith, who all had a keen
head for <br>
> facts and history.<br>
><br>
> Britain used free trade ideas as a means to maintain its
dominance <br>
> over other nations. The workshop of the world that encouraged
everyone <br>
> to liberalise, that free trade (and then classical economics)
was <br>
> best. And in the Pax (?) Americana, neoclassical economics
(in <br>
> infinite disguises) and the Washington Consensus serves the
same <br>
> function.<br>
><br>
> Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics -
these <br>
> approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is
room for <br>
> disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry
Milton, for <br>
> some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be
included in <br>
> the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his <br>
> Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no
different from <br>
> American Exceptionalists on this list. Of course I am aware
that in <br>
> the American context(where what passes for progressive is
quit <br>
> different, this may well be the case. It simply cannot be
generalised.<br>
><br>
> And in the "competition" through subsidised efforts Europe
builds <br>
> capabilities - both the tech no-(harware) and -ology (its
people). One <br>
> of the key elements of benefiting from a network is that
skills can be <br>
> diffused. Consumption of technology rich goods is not the
same as <br>
> producing them. Actually in a reverse sort of way the status
quoists <br>
> (exceptionalists, Institutionalists of a special type,
neoliberals, <br>
> etc) seek to maintain the US dominance by playing to that
nations <br>
> comparative advantage - also in institutions like ICANN and
the posse <br>
> that goes with it.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 2012/12/05 10:25 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote:<br>
><br>
> Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit :<br>
><br>
> "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were
supported<br>
> by military research contracts, which had no
intention of<br>
> supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet"
spread to the<br>
> general population and succeeded because of
telecommunications<br>
> liberalization and a free market.<br>
><br>
> Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily
the NSF<br>
> action in the 1981-1995 years...<br>
> And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture
capital<br>
> firm, launched in 1999.<br>
> And also the military orders in the advanced IT field.<br>
> Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy...<br>
><br>
> The government played an important role in facilitating
that<br>
> process by privatizing control and paving the way for
competition<br>
> among ISPs. There is no doubt about that.<br>
><br>
> Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for
dominance<br>
> abuse.<br>
><br>
> While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how
successful<br>
> European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to
compete<br>
> with Google has been?<br>
><br>
> I assume you already heard about the networks effect that
gives an<br>
> advantage to the first big player.<br>
> That's exactly why China and other countries protect
their<br>
> boundaries in order to help their IT industry to find
existence.<br>
><br>
> Do you think that Europe also ought to close their
virtual boundaries?<br>
><br>
> @+, Dom<br>
><br>
><br>
> Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by
free<br>
> market or by the US Gov action?<br>
><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>