[process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here

[Parminder]

>can only help this caucus come to an informed
> perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal attacks (don't
> shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message). (Mctim)

McTim (and Bill)

So, you claim John was merely, without sympathy, conveying the existing
situation of ICANN oversight. (And Bill you support it - saying, I
"seriously distorted what was actually said")

Some quotes from John's email (full email enclosed, for anyone to check
integrity of these quotes to the full text)

"....ICANN desperately needs the DOC's adult supervision" (John)

I read in the above a clear_acceptance_and_endorsement-of_the_situation that
the US should continue to unilaterally supervise/ control the technical body
that controls (to the extent, and in ways, we all know) the crucial global
resource, the Internet. 


"There has certainly been feverish wishful thinking inside and outside of
ICANN imagining that somehow ICANN and the root will float free, but it
ain't going to happen." (John)

"So do what you want to try to set up Internet governance processes, but
don't waste your time imagining that the DOC will go away." (John)

The above two quotes speak with clear 'derision' about the effort of all
those who seek change in the situation of ICANN's oversight. Such derision
does NOT come with helpless acceptance of a given 'unchangeable' reality, it
comes when one activity supports that 'reality'. 

And John did not say this stuff only once, he repeated the need for US's
'adult supervision' when Milton wrote

>Wow, John,
>It's ok to remind us that the US position has not changed, but I am 
>wondering why you feel the need to construct weak and biased apologia 
>for US control. (Milton)

John replied with

>if you don't find their need for adult supervision egregiously obvious, I
>doubt I can explain it.

So, US supervision is 'adult' and (by contrast) that of other countries
combined will be 'juvenile'!! Nothing can be more clearly partronising and
(I consciously repeat) neo-imperialist than that. 

You guys may be immune to such derogatory political allusions, but I am not.
And most people I work with are not. Such a reference, especially among
people in countries with a colonial past, immediately brings a bit of blood
to ones head. 

Anyways, now we can examine the word I used - "neo-imperialist", and whether
it was appropriate.

The first entry on Google search has this to say "Neo-imperialism refers to
the dominance of some nations over others by means of unequal conditions of
economic exchange." And then later "Neo-imperialism is a very general way to
view many of the new issues that are developing and will develop as our
world grows smaller due to more effective communication and contact between
foreign nations."

If use of terms of economic exchange for domination is neo-imperialism,
sitting over the central and one of the most important resources of the
world - the Internet -  and plainly refusing to be democratic and
participative with the global community in its governance is extreme
neo-imperialism (we all know that it gives geo-political advantages, does
any one doubt that).  

And someone who supports such unilateral control by one country, and derides
those who seek change, both_of_which_John_clearly_did, (does he or you deny
that) clearly professes neo-imperialist ideology (especially when one is the
citizen/ resident of that controlling country). That's the meaning of the
term. It has been created for this use, not to be in the sociology
dictionaries alone. And so I used it. It is not name-calling, in that
socially-inappropriate sense. It is a current socio-political description of
normal use. I agree it is not normally flattering, but then one has to
defend against it on facts, and not mere social-inappropriateness. 

I will have no hesitation, in fact consider it my duty as a social activist,
to use the term again in similar circumstances. 

And now if you, McTim and Bill, wants to make apologies for John and
corresponding attacks on me, that is your personal and political choice. No
problems for me, good luck.

And BTW if this is name-calling etc and inappropriate behavior on the list
what was it about calling my acts repeatedly as being of the nature of
'Spartacus Youth League'. Is it then not name calling? Bill, you said it
first, and McTim has made a habit of using it tauntingly on the list.

(Should I bring our all expressions you have used on the list at various
times in different exchanges with members so that we can decide what is
appropriate and what not.)

So, my friends, please give up this righteousness and superiority. This is
all our about our personal, and I think much more, about our political
proclivities. You have a right to be closer to whatever position you want
to. Just don't try unnecessary moral righteousness. 

Parminder   











 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > In political arenas one who clearly professes a political position (as
> John
> > Levine unapologetically does to a neo-imperialist ideology -
> 
> This is, to me, a personal insult, which is prohibited by our charter.
> 
> Quoting the charter:
> 
> "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those
> relating to:
> 
>           o
> 
>             No personal insults
>           o
> 
>             No spam
>     *
> 
>       Failure to abide by netiquette guidelines may result in
> suspension or removal from the IGC list according to the following
> process:
>           o
> 
>             The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of
> the problem"
> 
> 
> 
> If the insulter wasn't our only coordinator, I would ask that the
> other coordinator privately warn him against this sort of behaviour.
> At the very least, you should withdraw your use of the term
> "neo-imperialist", and apologise to JL publicly.
> 
> 
> 'things aren't
> > going to change, just accept and submit to the big bully')
> 
> This is:
> 
> A) not what he said
> B) not "neo-imperialist" (according to the only definition of it I
> could find online:
> http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=neo-imperialism)
> 
> As a (very) long time ICANN watcher and participant, JL (who I have
> never met personally BTW) has a much greater range of experience on
> these issues than most on this list.  Pointing out the facts ("The US
> DOC has always made it crystal clear that they will never under any
> plausible conditions relinquish their authority over the DNS root and,
> hence, over ICANN.") can only help this caucus come to an informed
> perspective on this issue, and should not draw personal attacks (don't
> shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message).
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> mctim.blogspot.com
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "John Levine" <icggov at johnlevine.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 03:40:53 +0530
Size: 6800
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080806/9fb7ef81/attachment.eml>