<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Puh-leez!<br>
<br>
It is perfectly fine to rubbish an idea <u>with reasons</u>. That
is not a "lie", it is <u>argument</u>. <br>
<br>
Perhaps, its time to draw a line with you on these kinds of matters
:)))))<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/12/07 03:47 PM, Suresh
Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1780B3AB-0504-4023-9286-1FC4271C138F@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>:) In other words, calling McTim's statements a lie rather
than calling him a liar?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No, no game at all. Just tired of petty politics. <br>
<br>
--srs (iPad)</div>
<div><br>
On 07-Dec-2012, at 19:11, Riaz K Tayob <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" 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">
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a><br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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:*<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
> [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br>
<span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>