<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
McTim<br>
<br>
Actually I should thank you for your email. I find it to perfectly
expound what I call US Exceptionalism in the context of global IG.<br>
<br>
You say that the US <i>'continues'</i> to have a legitimate
'historic role' in the global governance of the Internet, which I
understand to certainly mean as special and being different and
higher than of any other country/ government. <br>
<br>
However, in the next sentence you suggest that since it is difficult
to change the status quo, it is low priority for you and many
others..... Here you still do not explicitly say that you think it
is wrong that US should have a higher role than other governments.
You simply casually say, it is difficult to change things and so....
Do you think it is easier to change China's authoritarian policies
vis a vis the Internet, which consideration never seems to come in
our way of criticising them and seeking change.... Why then this
special favour to the US, is the question.<br>
<br>
(you also say that there is no alternative but to let the global
Internet corporations be subject basically to the US jurisdiction,
because in your view any multi-lateral alternative is worse .)<br>
<br>
In the next para however you are rather blunt. You say that " What
is wrong and unacceptable is the labeling of recognition of a pretty
fixed reality as "wrong and unacceptable"! "<br>
<br>
I havent heard a clearer status quoist statement. You are telling us
that 'a pretty fixed reality' is best to recognised as such, whereby
it is useless to protest and seek change. (People can actually say
such things on CS lists which are supposed to do advocacy for
political change!!)<br>
<br>
McTim, you have rather clearly described the politics of US
exceptionalism and status quo-ism which is indirectly practised by
many on this list .<br>
<br>
As to your comment <br>
<br>
" What is also wrong and unacceptable is the notion that those of us
who advocate for a single unified Internet are somehow suspect. "
(McTim)<br>
<br>
This is a complete red herring. I have no doubt that I am as much a
supporter for a single unified Internet as you may be. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 20 January 2013 08:20 PM,
McTim wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxii7DR4mYjxbWtiUWYZ1j-ccAk19ir=tD+7hAnYzXyVfg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:08 AM, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sunday 20 January 2013 03:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
<snip>
I don't recall support the notion of US Exceptionalism from anyone on this
list.
No one will profess that term for oneself. However, clearly it is US
Exceptionalism being practised when:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">No one on the list you mean?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">1. anyone agrees or shows strong sympathy with the view that US has (not
just 'had') a 'historic role' in the evolution of the Internet
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">this is factual, I would expect people to have strong sympathy towards it.
(and perhaps
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">in protection of its 'basic principles', whatever it may mean) and therefore
some degree of continued pre-eminence of the US government in some key IG
arrangements, including of the CIRs, is fine/ acceptable...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2. anyone is fine with US laws/ courts/ executive/ statutory authorities
(FCC, FTC etc) determine much of how the Internet's architecture develops,
whether through US law/ jurisdiction’s application on the ICANN, or on most
of the monopoly global Internet mega-corporates....
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In fact, if the IGC can agree that such US exceptionalism is wrong and
unacceptable
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>