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

[Parminder]

> >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".
> Could you point out where I said anything at all about developing
> country governments?

John

This is what you said...

"....although there's been a certain amount of harrumphing on principle from
some governments, in reality they know that ICANN desperately needs the
DOC's adult supervision."

The "some' governments protesting ICANN's supervision by the US, from my
knowledge of this area, which is reasonably good, is mostly developing
countries. I also think that everyone knows this, but if you insist on
substantiation of the point it can be done by looking back over the
preparatory meetings for IGF Rio to see which all governments spoke most for
getting ICANN issues into IGF agenda, and which were quite, and even subtly
opposed. And when the Brazilian minister declared somewhat dramatically at
Rio IGF's opening that 'it is time to move on in global IG arrangements'
everyone knows which governments were "not amused" and which chuckled.
........ So, one deduces by widely known and accepted facts. That's natural.

In any case, if you didn't mean developing countries at all, strange though
it would be in light of the 'known facts', why don't you just say that and
tell us which are these 'some' governments. Then we will have something to
discuss about. 

attacking straw man
> arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if
> you could have made a real argument instead.

Did you NOT say that the governments that 'outwardly' protest - which I know
as per above are mostly developing country governments - "really know" that
they can not do without US's supervision of the ICANN, which invited my
political characterization of such an view. 

I will like to clearly hear that from you, rather than this
superior-posturing, using subtle personal characterizations, that I had
recently the opportunity to write in some detail about. 


Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:20 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: parminder at itforchange.net
> Subject: [governance] Re: USG on ICANN - no movement here
> 
> >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".
> 
> Could you point out where I said anything at all about developing
> country governments?
> 
> Perhaps cultural norms differ, but around here, attacking straw man
> arguments that someone else didn't make isn't a tactic that you use if
> you could have made a real argument instead.
> 
> Once again, I am impressed at the many ways that people find to waste
> time rather than to address governance issues.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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