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

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Parminder and all,

  A well argued comparison, IMO.  Of course I am very sure
others will strongly, and in some underhanded ugly fashion, disagree.
Such seems to be the preferred method of political discourse over
the past 10 or so years.  Sad commentary, eh?

  However given ICANN often-wrong methods and DOC/NTIA's
less than adequate, sometimes skewed oversight at times as well, the
disconnect deriving in the current state or affairs is what is the
result.
Now we need to try to make that better, not do constant finger
pointing and he said/she said endlessly circular arguments.

  So again I pose my original question in response:  Whom or what other
than ICANN itself, or DOC/NTIA is well suited to oversee ICANN?
I believe we have largely agreed that the UN and/or any of it's organs
or affiliated organizations are not suited to do so.  I believe that
Syracuse EDU. also has been eliminated as an option.

  Any other suggestions?  And if so, why would they be better suited?

Parminder wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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