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

[Parminder]

Bill

 

>BTW, when people like John talk about ICANN needing 'adult supervision,'
they are talking >about ICANN---the board, et >al---needing oversight.  

(snip)

>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.

 

Yes, I know John said that it is the ICANN which needs adult supervision of
the US. But what you are ignoring is that he also said that --- developing
country governments "in reality . know that ICANN desperately needs the
DOC's adult supervision".

 

First of all this is a blatant untruth. Developing country governments hate
the principle of US's unilateral political supervision of the ICANN (and you
know that). The people and civil society in these countries (mostly) hate it
even more. 

 

Second, to posit such a helpless dependency attitude as characterizing
developing countries (which as I said is untrue) is centrally and strongly
neo-imperialist. That's the meaning of neo-imperialism. Period. 

 

So, I consider it my political duty to offer my political critique to such a
position using the political-analytical language of current usage. (And, I
would go further to say, I am as justified in also critiquing the apologists
for the proponents of such views.)

 

I do know it is not pleasant to be critiqued as holding neo-imperialist
views, but I am more bothered about the sensitivities of the countries and
people who are the butt of neo-imperialism rather than the feelings of John
Levine, if they be, inadvertently, touched in the process.

 

You can of course choose whose feelings you are more bothered about
depending upon personal or political preferences. But as I said, no
superiority here please. 

 

> particularly if that means more multi-screen screeds.  

 

After you say, yes, I agree with McTim, when he proposes launching official
'inappropriate list behavior' proceedings against me, and add that I am
seriously distorting what someone said on the list, you expect that I should
not explain myself in some detail but simple run away and hide since 'you
have spoken' and that should be it. 

 

And now for some personal epithets/ attacks you used against me and my
responses to them in terms of what, in that case, I may have to say about
you, (because if you just let it be, such behavior is so dominantly
established, it only grows)

 

 

> .dipping into the gutter.

 

"insufferable snobbery"

 

> . belligerent fight picking

 

"systemic in-group exclusionary behavior"

 

Your serve, please. 

 

Since Avri has professed eagerness to learn Hindi idioms, I can start with
you who uses US political history for 'labeling' me - they say over here
'before you sit on a cot you should swipe under it with a stick to make sure
there is not anything under it'. You may think about paying attention to
this. 

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:55 PM
To: Singh, Parminder; McTim; Governance
Subject: Re: [process] Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here

 

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   











-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080809/b3a86328/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