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

Wed Aug 6 07:24:35 EDT 2008

Parminder,

I clearly was referring to John¹s point that

>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.
>This policy has never changed, and their recent note
>contains no surprises to anyone who's been paying
>attention.

That was unmistakably the main thrust of my message.  I don¹t happen to
agree with him that ICANN needs DOJ¹s adult supervision,¹ gave no
indication that I did, and have said plenty of things to the contrary on
this list and elsewhere over the past five years, in plain view of you.
Please do not attribute views to me that are not mine in order to score
cheap rhetorical points.

I also noted that it¹s not appropriate for the coordinator to be attacking
people and hurling around ideological labels.  I stand by that, you are not
just any subscriber to the list, you¹re the caucus coordinator so
belligerent fight picking is unhelpful.

BTW, when people like John talk about ICANN needing adult supervision,¹
they are talking about ICANN---the board, et al---needing oversight.  It may
not be the form of oversight you or I favor, but that¹s a legitimate and
often expressed view that can be disputed on the merits without dipping into
the gutter.  In contrast, I didn¹t hear him saying that other countries are
juvenile, so characterizing the point as patronizing and neo-imperialist
seems a tad misplaced. Sorry to hear it brings blood to your head,
particularly if that means more multi-screen screeds.  Or we could agree to
disagree and move on to something more useful.

Bill

On 8/6/08 11:35 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
>> >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   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080806/23ff8444/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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