[governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here

Sat Aug 9 04:47:30 EDT 2008

At the risk of extending what really is a tedious discussion...

It seems to me that the issue here is whether the term "neo-imperialism" is
being used in its "technical/scientific" mode as in for example
(neo-Conservative) Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson's book "Empire: The Rise
and Fall of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power" where
he praises the US for accepting the (neo?) burdens of empire (dare one say
"taking responsibility (acting as an adult??) for ICANN"), or, as an epithet
as might be used for example by the Trotskyist denizens of the Spartacus
Youth League when looking for the vilest and most cutting insult to hurl at
a class enemy member of the Fourth International Revolutionary Marxists...

I think that we should all take Parminder at his word that he was using the
term in the first meaning above rather than the second, and move on...

MG  

-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: August 9, 2008 12:41 AM
To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'
Subject: RE: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here

Milton (and Bill and McTim may want to pay special attention)

>While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to move
>forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political forces in 
>DC," he tried to defend the arrangement, .......and conclude that it 
>(ICANN)
needed >"adult supervision.">Why is he exempt from criticism here?

Thanks for pointing this out. On 'productive ways' however,

I cant see how 'my way' may have been much more or less productive than your
'critique'/ 'labeling' (as one may want to see it) in your response to Rui's
emails on the issue of hate-speech websites :).

While I cannot bring back the whole political passion that your email
expresses, I will quote selectively from what Milton said about Rui's
email(the original email is enclosed, for others)

"This misappropriation is far more dangerous than a clear
authoritarian....." 

In fact my 'neo-imperialist' email did the same comparison between an active
political and passive one..... Only that Milton directly says that "it is
far more dangerous than..." and I said much more mildly ' may really amount
to the same" . I in fact also added a rider - " Unless, one is ready to
explore or at least discuss reasonable options."

Because, I of course have to speak with much more care than Milton. One,
because Milton is speaking about freedom of expression, and I 'merely' about
'neo-imperialism' and second, ok, lets leave it for now....

And Milton feels quite free to proceed on and say..

"I don't see any difference in principle between this and the attempts of,
e.g., Islamic fanatics to kill Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali for their
heresies." (Milton)

"What's bizarre and disturbing about this is the appropriation of "human
rights" terminology by people who clearly just don't understand the moral,
political and philosophical basis of free expression." (milton)

I understand that Milton takes it as a legitimate language of (maybe strong)
political critique. And since Bill and McTim did not pounce on him when
these statements are made right in the middle of their moralising to me,
they must also think it is as legitimate political critique (which is to
give the most chartable interpretation I can).

I have no issues with Milton's descriptions, though I do not agree with him
on the views that propel them, nor with the political critique contained
therein. 

However, what at this point I am more interested in knowing is that how were
my comments made about neo-imperialist views as  a part of a serious and
detailed political critique considered so reprehensible and Milton's above
comments(and as I know many other such comments) not picked/ pounced on.

Is it Bill that you choose the people you pounce on carefully, or else you
choose the political positions you pounce on carefully... it has to one, so
let me know which is it.

Is it something about Milton and me, as persons, or is it that
anti-authoritarian-ism is closer to your heart and anti-imperialism a
distant consideration, if at all, or maybe, it is something else.   

Thanks.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:19 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; Singh, Parminder
> Subject: RE: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> >
> > I agree with McTim that this name calling is inappropriate,
> particularly
> > coming from our coordinator, and that it is seriously distorts what
> was
> > actually said.  Post-JPA has been discussed here before and a number
> of
> 
> While the epithet "neo-imperialist" may not be a productive way to 
> move forward, Levine did not just talk about "powerful political 
> forces in DC," he tried to defend the arrangement, and when asked what 
> value US oversight added, he replied in a dismissive way that anyone 
> who had been at an ICANN meeting had to conclude that it needed "adult 
> supervision." Why is he exempt from criticism here?
> 
> > > Might help shift the debate a little if for the next review NTIA
> were to
> > > hear a LOT more from proponents of change, including a fleshed out
> and
> > > plausible scenario as to how independence would work 
> > > geopolitically,
> why
> > > there'd be no real risk of "takeover by foreign governments," how 
> > > we
> > could
> > > have rock solid guarantees of exactly the same levels of security,
> > > stability, and control in the last instance as now.   Something that
> > would
> > If enough people here believe this is a top priority, maybe the 
> > caucus could try to do something productive for a change and develop 
> > a compelling alternative and promote it in a manner that is 
> > politically salient.
> Then
> 
> That is why, ahem, IGP developed and proposed a workshop on the JPA 
> for the Hyderabad IGF. Keep in mind that the progression is clear. USG 
> can start by terminating the JPA, which doesn't cost it control of the 
> root and still gives it life or death power over ICANN, but ending the 
> JPA removes the most direct and egregious forms of US intervention. 
> And we have made very specific proposals as to what conditions would 
> justify termination of the JPA, although, like you, we are routinely 
> disappointed with the level of attention those issues tend to draw 
> from this crowd.
> 
> We can debate more radical independence measures later, after a few 
> post-JPA years and its review by the IGF....
> 
> > Then maybe Milton would have a better chance of winning his $50 bet
> with
> > me as to whether an Obama administration (inshallah) would do
> something in
> 
> Well, at least I picked the primary winner correctly.
____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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