<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
This is the interpretation we make (and we are entitled to make it)
when for instance:<br>
<br>
1. Some argue for ICANN etc to be regulated by US laws (state or
otherwise) - and that this is sufficient.<br>
<br>
2. Others argue that legitimacy of the current structure of
governance is not an issue, and that work ought rather to be done
within the system. And that it is a none issue. <br>
<br>
I recall that I and others were asked why the Assange issue was
relevant to Internet Governance. To respond to that, I said, well if
US Exceptionalism (as explained above, but I will try to dig out
some of the more plum quotes on this issue when/if I have time) as
defined by me (I recall I even had to explain that I reserve the
right 'to determine the terms of the terms' of my engagement - and
legitimacy is an issue) is allowed on this list then so is
interrogation of it.<br>
<br>
And if you don't like the terms/labels, then perhaps we can look at
the discourse of how the 'single rooters' characterised the
"multi-rooters" (or break the internet brigade) which should give us
an inkling of the appropriate balance of how to determine the 'terms
of the terms' of the engagement.<br>
<br>
And what term would you prefer? ICANN supporters, US fans, Status
Quoists, or do you find these too constricting and that every issue
should simply be qualitatively assessed?<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/01/20 11:30 AM, Adam Peake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFabd1K9N4TrRdiUEnU4Zhc=fPs89CPBT9cOiaW7sNEj2jNTAA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><font face="sans-serif">I don't recall support the
notion of US Exceptionalism from anyone on this list. </font></blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>