<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD economies. Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate because it doesn't share that consensus.</div><div><br></div><div>Ask anybody at all that has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who would be rather careful and specific in not coining new phraseology like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get this consensus viewpoint. I can think of people in Nepal, Kenya and lots of other countries that would meet your definition of "single rooter".<br><br>Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At least that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the charter says something to the contrary when others read it.</div><div><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob <<a href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we will have of actually achieving multistakeholder control over ICANN's narrow bit of turf.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is
political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it is
always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is not
legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as Gadhiji
said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is ineffective has
not been in bed with a mosquito.<br>
<br>
Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of the
complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the single
rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I find the
tenor much better - particularly when it comes to ensuring a)
diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I say it)
tolerance. <br>
<br>
And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be
sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective,
those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously
sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from
simply being expressed. <i>A combination I dare say that is too
coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from
this view</i>. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair
when I am not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda
curtailment. It would not be so bad if it were more refined and
empathic than its typical formulations. <br>
<br>
I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You
see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective
of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society
representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters,
history and context would be required to understand what is
happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose one
particular version and in effect declined or marginalised
technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something
that should never happen again.<br>
<br>
Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the
co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement,
because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the devil
turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply
concerned with the rules of the road, as are you.<br>
<br>
As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness (in
a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable to
coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's
actions can then be put in the appropriate context<br>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br><span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br><span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br><span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>