<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>Following on from Norbert's very useful attempt to shift the grounds of the discussion away from a discussion of political terminology/political rhetoric and towards the more (and quite real) differences of perception/values underlying these...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>(and please be aware that I'm not arguing for one position or another in the below, I'm simply trying to clarify underlying assumptions/expectations…bare with me, the point I'm trying to make needs the fairly convoluted run up but I think it is one that goes to the very heart of our collective enterprise here in the IGC…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>McTim in the below says<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><i>Well it is what we have (talking about the root servers issue) and there are significant barriers to overcome to eliminate this (US Congress for one) that makes working on this issue very low down on the priority list for many of us.<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoPlainText> 1. McTim's argument here is that because there are "significant barriers" (as for example the political stance of a particular national legislative body) to what might otherwise be normatively desireable then the issue has (should have?) a relatively low priority i.e. because something is politically unfeasible therefore it should not have priority in our discussions<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><i>Again there is no feasible alternative (except my bitBoat or Internetistan idea maybe). Would you like FB, Google, Yahoo!, all the tier 1's etc, etc to be regulated by a UN CIRP? There is no way you will get any significant number of nations to give up sovereignty in this way.</i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText> 2. that is because of the above, a number of potentially (normatively) desirable "technical" options are foreclosed. This leaves the status quo as not only the only "technical" option but also the only "political" option (in terms of "sovereignty") for some countries<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>(Therefore) <i>What is wrong and unacceptable is the labeling of recognition of a pretty fixed reality as "wrong and unacceptable"! What is also wrong and unacceptable is the notion that those of us who advocate for a single unified Internet are somehow suspect.<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoPlainText><i> </i>3. that is because of the political stance of a particular national legislative body something has become accepted as the necessary technical option and this in turn has now been accepted as the necessary "political" option by certain countries. This has now become a "pretty fixed reality" and thus what started out as a "political" position has now become a necessary and uncontestable "reality". As a "reality" it is of course, not subject to reasonable challenge.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I can understand the train of logic that McTim is following above… In philosophical terms this is usually called "pragmatism" (wikipedia: <i>Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition centered on the linking of practice and theory. It describes a process where theory is extracted from practice, and applied back to practice to form what is called intelligent practice…. Pragmatism as a philosophical movement began in the United States in the 1870s.</i>)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>To make some extremely gross generalizations, Pragmatism is about <i>problem solving. </i> <i>Norms</i> (values) emerge out of the solving of problems. Not surprisingly pragmatism is highly identified with technical thinking and for example, an engineering/problem solving approach to larger philosophical and other issues (including political ones). This differs from the position of most schools of thought (not surprisingly since not many philosophers or political/normative thinkers are engineers) where norms are established first and then those are used as the basis on which problems are solved. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I leave it to my distinguished colleagues in the IGC to assess the relative significance that should be given to a "pragmatic" approach to the questions we typically address as compared for example, to a "normative" approach.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>As an aside based on the above we might see a number of the disputes in the IGC as reflecting the broader growing pains of the Internet as it transitions from a technical phenomenon to a socio-political one. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Mike<i><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim<br>Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 6:50 AM<br>To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org; parminder<br>Subject: Re: [governance] Bloomberg - The Overzealous Prosecution of Aaron Swartz</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText> (and perhaps<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> in protection of its 'basic principles', whatever it may mean) and <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> therefore some degree of continued pre-eminence of the US government <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> in some key IG arrangements, including of the CIRs, is fine/ acceptable...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Well it is what we have and there are significant barriers to overcome to eliminate this (US Congress for one) that makes working on this issue very low down on the priority list for many of us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> 2. anyone is fine with US laws/ courts/ executive/ statutory <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> authorities (FCC, FTC etc) determine much of how the Internet's <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> architecture develops, whether through US law/ jurisdiction’s <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> application on the ICANN, or on most of the monopoly global Internet mega-corporates....<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Again there is no feasible alternative (except my bitBoat or Internetistan idea maybe). Would you like FB, Google, Yahoo!, all the tier 1's etc, etc to be regulated by a UN CIRP? There is no way you will get any significant number of nations to give up sovereignty in this way.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> In fact, if the IGC can agree that such US exceptionalism is wrong and <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> unacceptable<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>What is wrong and unacceptable is the labeling of recognition of a pretty fixed reality as "wrong and unacceptable"!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>What is also wrong and unacceptable is the notion that those of us who advocate for a single unified Internet are somehow suspect.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>--<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>McTim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>