<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Fwiw, the best part is the disclaimer - healthy doubt :P , :)<br>
<br>
I will read these asap. <br>
<br>
But to engage.<br>
<br>
What would go some ways to ameliorate the concerns of Parminder,
Gurstein, (just to pick on them) etc?<br>
<br>
At a high level of abstraction, there is opposition to the bill,
perhaps on political economy terms. Yet at a lower level of
abstraction, many things are possible (setting aside the legitimacy
issue - to interrogate issues). Including transparency; which may be
insufficient for others. <br>
<br>
We can in parallel continue to debate over reform and radical
positions, principled vs more pragmatic (not implying unprincipled),
etc but that is seperate from these inquiries. Playing in the other
pen, so to speak.<br>
<br>
What interests me in particular is what "vision" of/for change does
this evoke at the lower level of abstraction? I get it that those
intimate and familiar with the system can see some equation that
gives cause for optimism. As positioned as I am, I cannot really get
it because of my blinkers. If I try harder, what I would be
interested in is how subsequent change (from what will follow this
bill) will be dealt with and regulated. If it includes a broad range
of possibilities for increased CIR internationalisation (different
from he McTim and Mueller vision of internationalisation), or even
stated in the negative, that it does not explicitly preclude such
evolution, it may be more palatable. So, I am interested in the
'laws of motion' based on the institutional framework you see
currently <i>and </i>how it can evolve.<br>
<br>
And I value your views and this is not some trick etc. It is an
attempt to get a real appreciation of what fecundity there is in the
population/ensemble for dynamism...<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/04/18 06:54 PM, John Curran
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7C280A97-8B88-4DDF-9294-695B0CF71C84@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>
<div>On Apr 18, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Riaz K Tayob <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Thesi<b>s: The Bill is
good for IG.</b><br>
<br>
(I am NOT the best person to make the case!!) <br>
<br>
It establishes a policy in legislation ensuring MS.<br>
<br>
It includes preservation as well as advancement - it
incorporates the possibility of future change.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Riaz - I'll try and make the case, but probably not as you
expect...
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>FYI - Two articles about this bill from RollCall (a
publication covering US legislative events) - </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/an_internet_almost_free_from_government_control-224101-1.html">http://www.rollcall.com/news/an_internet_almost_free_from_government_control-224101-1.html</a>></div>
<div> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/who_really_runs_the_internet-224102-1.html">http://www.rollcall.com/news/who_really_runs_the_internet-224102-1.html</a>></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(and one of the articles quotes the esteemed Milton
Mueller...)</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I believe that fact-based dialogue is generally good, and
to the extent that this bill helps everyone </div>
<div>gain a better understanding of the present reality, it is
helpful to the cause of Internet Governance. </div>
<div>For those in US government, it has made plain that the
multistakeholder model is very important </div>
<div>and should be supported, while also highlighting the unique
USG(NTIA)/ ICANN relationship (which </div>
<div>has not been well known or understood by some in the USG.)
For those advocating change in the</div>
<div>Internet Governance framework to one which is "free of
government control", the removal of that </div>
<div>phrase is a readily referencable event as evidence of
concerns with the present system. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Improved visibility into the present system is a win in any
case.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>FYI,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Disclaimers: My views alone. To the best of my knowledge,
this email was prepared in a manner</div>
<div> "free of government control" </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>