[governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd

[Parminder]

McTim

You seriously believe ICANN is a civil society organisation!?

Apart from the many other absurdities implied, you mentioned in your 
email to Milton that allocation of domain name, IP addresses etc is  a 
'natural monopoly' function. Dont you see that civil society is 
definitionally a social sub-system denoting pluralism, 
non-rivalrous-ness, non-monopoly etc.... How could an organisation do a 
'natural monopoly' function and be civil society?

Parminder

McTim wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>   
>>> BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
>>> disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU 
>>> in re: IP address distribution issues.
>>>       
>> McTim
>>
>> I am touched by your concern for conflict of interest issues :).
>>
>> In fact very often I do think of the basis of legitimacy of civil society
>> and I find issues of transparency, responding to critiques and other
>> questions immediately and always, accountability, proof of action/
>> performance vis a vis ideals upheld etc as key in this regard. 'Conflict of
>> interest' issues are very important here, and very high standards of
>> disclosure must be maintained. As importantly, structural situations of any
>> such conflicts of interests should be avoided, and in any case openly
>> discussed, and responded to.
>>
>> However, I do find it strange and incongruous that whenever we have tried to
>> discuss on this list conflict of interest issues implicating people in
>> important management positions of bodies  involved in Internet policy-making
>> seeking to represent civil society, you have repeatedly taken up the defence
>> such practises, and pooh poohed considerations of conflict of interest. Can
>> you please explain the double standards being employed by you in this
>> regard.
>>     
>
> As I have explained many times before, I see the current IG orgs
> (ICANN/IETF/ISOC/RIRs/ccTLD bodies, etc as CS orgs.  At least
> according to LSE and Wikipoedia and most other definitions of CS I can
> find online.
>
>
>
>   
>> It is important to note that the issue you point out in this case is just a
>> possible one-off contract of research/ study etc (though I agree with your
>> demand for full disclosure) , while the practices you have defended pertains
>> to people actually occupying key permanent positions in Internet policy
>> making bodies, whereby they are organisationally bond to represent the
>> interests of their employing organisation.
>>     
>
>
> exactly, they are bound to represent their CS orgs.  Just as you
> represent yours.
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/277dedbc/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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t