<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
McTim <i>et al</i><br>
<br>
On Kafka we can always agree :) <br>
<br>
But we differ on first principles. As stated in the thread on
internationalisation (of yours and Milton's), we disagree at the
level of first principles. The freedom/liberty/voluntrism implicit
in those articulations is one I characterised of a particular kind,
as Fischer I think wrote - free to choose; which I did not share.
The repost at that time from more heterodox views appended, free to
loose. It is a particular type of voluntrism - where everyone is
free to sleep under bridges, rich or poor. Kinda like Marie
Antoinette who allegedly said, why don't they eat cake. I doubt she
said it because of her type of upbringing as later historians argue
as she was brought up with strict noblesse oblige and was active in
caring for the destitute despite her privileges.<br>
<br>
For purposes of taking matters forward, if constructive action/s are
possible in this vein, perhaps you could clarify your views on
internationalisation, multistakeholderism (equity in representation
of estates, public interest, commercial sector, revolving door
appointed 'regulators'), legitimacy of governance of CIR including
ICANN. You have been vocal on this so perhaps you do not want to go
through these, but I do think it may dispel any misapprehensions of
others on your views some critiques/dialogues of ours may have
caused.<br>
<br>
Then there is the procedural aspects of political practice (not
right or wrong, just about processes; kinda yes/no) regarding the
relevance of IGC list discussion on - whether there is a common set
of issues between the technical and regulatory/public interest; -
the US ecosystem of laws and institutions as a subject of debate for
the Global Internet; - the role and practice of corporations in
internet governance; procedures for selection of and composition of
technical team members; - whether it is a valid democratic option to
opt not to deal with ICANN and related institutions to object to
their illegitimacy, whether (legitimate) vested interests have the
same standing as public interests, and if the same standards of
universal human rights and democratic norms should apply to all
countries. <br>
<br>
Since you feel pilloried, and I have my notes, this may clarify it
for others - far be it for me to characterise your views at this
point. As you know, chopping the head off of the many hydra that is
Internet Governance and replacing it with a legitimate one while
retaining all other arrangements (for incremental change) is valid
for discussion as is the Parminder/ IT4Change proposals (not
speaking for them, just a reference). This is no less idealistic
than your utopian/conception of government '<i>free</i>' internet
governance (italics because the state is still called upon to
regulate and enforce property rights - the <i>a priori</i>
contradiction at the heart of many libertarian views, just fyi :). <br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/06/10 11:39 PM, McTim wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxh-cW_R=nhcngjArCLhOU_u6Z6YDqqxz7HhrA0VeH65SQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Suresh
Ramasubramanian <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net" target="_blank">suresh@hserus.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>More worryingly, I have found neimoller's great words
often sadly cheapened by dragging them into any debate at
all about a government's actions. Possibly in effect
comparing said government to the evil regime that targeted
him and everybody else in his poem?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What I find worrying is that those of us who have always
been concerned about giving gov'ts too much power in IG arenas
are now pilloried for blocking attempts at giving gov't too
much power when it is in fact a gov't that is responsible for
this fiasco (not the T&A folks, nor biz folks who are
also pilloried).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kafkaesque!!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>