<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Thanks Parminder<br>
<br>
As I said, as one idiot savant, it is good to have the cat amongst
the pigeons. On this list it seems if one is less than robust in
articulation, one can get papered over. That we see the same themes
played over and over again is remarkable for its consistency. <br>
<br>
The IGF is a non-binding forum and the treatment CIR has received is
unacceptable. ANY political process that seeks to address the
legitimacy issue must face this squarely, and if it cannot, well
then it is merely tendentious. <br>
<br>
Being guided by incrementalist approaches that seek to entertain
ideas and/or understand that is perfectly rational, rationality
being my ticket for entry into civil society. And there is space for
all estates. But I refuse to start off from, or be required to, the
presumption that markets are best (or if it ain't broke don't fix
it, or other single rooter fantasms, take your pick). It depends and
I start off from the scepticism of a priori assumptions. Has IETF
delivered a remarkable technical machinery for the world, you
betcha. That has merit, and I would be loathed to have interference
in it by way of higher level governance changes that affect its
efficacy. However, it is not a blanket position. If the technical
and regulatory share a set in the venn, then it simply depends
again. Or if a firm makes a good policy intervention, that is fine,
one can entertain it. But I will not start from the presumption that
it accords with public interest, without excluding the possibility
that it might well (but that raises other issues, like dependency of
alliances etc). Nick's computer industry group is a good case in
point around TRIPs and LDCs. There are shared values, but I am not
going to give them a veto over it nor would they want that, for
other reasons. One can even disagree with MSM and challenge Gurstein
but still go along with him tactically as a fellow traveller. Values
convergence allows for far more flexibility. I certainly do not want
to be a Luddite on governance innovations. But that cuts both ways
too irt DOC/ICANN.<br>
<br>
But we have a semblance of dialogue on this list, whose contours you
have highlighted. And civil society is messy, but I do draw the line
where rationality fails, as if even legal systems did not have bill
of rights that acts as a countermajoritarian device in a
majoritarian democracy. My trouble, and see by the responses you
get, is that there is a status quoist <i>cabal</i> that operates in
various guises that seeks domination through, in Malcolm X's words,
any means necessary. I would not mind it if were not so
disingenuous, and simultaneously transparent. This does not go to
motive necessarily, people can be sincere/naive/innocent. That does
not factor, simply because legitimacy operates at a higher level of
abstraction. And specific differences are merely symptomatic of this
higher level difference. <br>
<br>
Or to talk to you as a neocolonised subject, it is just like the
wild west, with cowboys vs indians, slaves etc. And the wild west
was opened up because of colonist pressures on New England who were
becoming upstarts. The characterisation of the colonial power then
was, the British were liberal, philanthropic and monopolists. We see
market orientation, GAC, training courses, and DOC contractual
control respectively. It did not matter how many American British
monarchists there were, nor the number of house slaves who sang
their masters' praises. Legitimacy issues like freedom were not
discounted by collaboration as ideas. So they through a tea party in
Boston. <br>
<br>
One can waste ones candour in such crass discussions of course, I
find these tedious as certainly others do too. I would be happy to
admit the very real possibility that a slave makes a bad master.
What I have difficulty in countenancing is a modern dialogue on
these values/issues. We can even forgive the earlier colonists for
the genocidal Great Exploration/Expansion/Discovery ages, as that
was the tribal morality at the time in much of the world and there
were few articulate natives to make a case. The modern set however
has no such excuse. The dialogue on this list is pretty much was
Hoffman called it, and that is just normal. Perhaps more can be
learned from N S engagements in other UN fora, as it is oft much
better - despite as stark differences on policies. <br>
<br>
And more personally, don't feel dejected about the responses you
get. Its up to you and yours to keep Swartz's and Elsberg's memory
alive, even if it means you have to deprive some in the North of
their monopoly of definition <i>of the terms</i> of the terms of
the engagement. It you who is hunting, so even if you can just
yelp, keep the quarry running, working for its power. Things change,
endogenously and exogenously, and exercised power fragments... <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/03/22 09:09 AM, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:514C039D.9030906@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Beware Riaz, you are stepping into another
prohibited space of "do not discuss"<br>
<br>
Do not discuss "US gov role in ICANN"<br>
<br>
Do not discuss "google, facebook etc"<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">Do
not discuss "technical community"<br>
</font></font></font><br>
<font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana"><font
face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">Do not discuss "issues
of accountability and transparency of MS processes" <br>
<br>
</font></font></font></font></font><font face="Verdana"><font
face="Verdana">Do not discuss</font>. "ICANN's processes"<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana"><font
face="Verdana">Do not discuss</font></font> "OECD's global
Internet policy making activities"<br>
<br>
Dont you have something to say about a developing country
government, UN or ITU.... <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 22 March 2013 12:25 PM,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8B36D3B3-E8A1-4369-8528-D92772A75AC9@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What jurisdictional issues? In practice - where do you see USG actively interfering in ICANN affairs, except in broad concerns over governance where DOC / NTIA do set direction at times?
And do you see civil society and industry barred from an ICANN meet, ever?
--srs (iPad)
On 22-Mar-2013, at 3:34, Riaz K Tayob <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com"><riaz.tayob@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Intergovernmental hegemony. Not quite for me.
Formal equality is one thing, but too equalising given the current jurisdiction issues with ICANN etc.
On 2013/03/21 10:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
Seems like until it happens we really do't know what it will be.
It could turn out to be a island of multistakeholder cooperation in a sea of inter-governmental hegemony.
avri
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>