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

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Bill and all,

  And I, along with most Americans as well as other nations of
the world disagree with your opinion and the JPA review made clear.

  ICANN, especially it's Bod, GNSO, and ASO are clearly in
dire need of Adult supervision to include DOC/NTIA.

William Drake wrote:

> Parminder,
>
> I clearly was referring to John’s 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 don’t happen
> to agree with him that ICANN needs DOJ’s ‘adult supervision,’ 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 it’s 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, you’re the caucus
> coordinator so belligerent fight picking is unhelpful.
>
> BTW, when people like John talk about ICANN needing ‘adult
> supervision,’ they are talking about ICANN---the board, et
> al---needing oversight.  It may not be the form of oversight you or I
> favor, but that’s a legitimate and often expressed view that can be
> disputed on the merits without dipping into the gutter.  In contrast,
> I didn’t 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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