[governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence?
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Sat Aug 4 18:03:18 EDT 2012
Doctor
Thanks for the note on tenor of discussions on this list. And I am
adequately chastised. That said (there seems to always be a but with
someone like me... so please don't take it in the wrong way...),
But if you look at some of the discussions there is a need for those who
raise challenges under the banner of legitimacy one can easily discern
that the courtesy you talk about is not a two way street. And I for one
have no problems with robust discussions if reason is not the first
casualty. In point of fact, I appreciate it when people come right out
and support American Exceptionalism - because at least, as they say, it
goes with the territory of being a global power. I do wish you would
level similar critiques at those who characterise the legitimacy issue
(of CIR) as*"internet propaganda"* (when propaganda about a single root
was technically sound for many, many a year - and anyone who crit it was
like those who crit Mortgage Backed Security derivatives: simply out of
the fold!) which is about as crude and vulgar as you can get.
I trust that you will also weigh in when Parminder et al put out views
that are subject to similar arguments, i.e. "A assumes that B is X just
because a part of his/her positions are like some of X, sound like part
of X, or are conflated in the reader's minds to be like X" - examples in
bold for your edification.
Not only have peoples views been belittled on this list, but they are
also marginalised and put to higher standards of "proof". Sure it is not
precisely the same bunch of people - but the arguments are repetitive
and go round in circles, often with ICANN defenders against a few lonely
voices on this list. Even on recent threads, the argument is that *we
are back to 2003/4*. As if progress has been made on*legitimacy*.
So, if one expects reasonableness then it must be with an even hand -
which I trust will come forth with your guiding hand as for some of us
the legitimacy issue remains unsatisfactorily resolved - and there is
continued engagement.
And lest there be no doubt. I do not mind nationalism, or favouring
market based, or self supervision or even 'if ain't broke don't fix it'
arguments - it is when there is a posse of people who support these
sentiments and make claims to universal application - when in fact these
are claims of universalism that rather do violence to difference.
Parminder has raised concerns for instance about *MSG as a format*.
These were discussed but not taken seriously - and now that Companies
have a coalition whereas public interest civil society is rather weaker,
it seems like Parminder's concerns have borne fruit (i.e. more
analytically valid in poeisis) as compared to others, at least from my
point of view.
Further, it is fine to take a values based position (eg on*freedom of
expression*) regarding China, but it would be wrong to then sublate that
critique into mute when it comes to rich country democracies. It is not
reasonable to expect others to tolerate these double standards - even if
the proponents of such views can manage these contradictions. That is
the kind of party invite one can refuse.
But you are correct issues of tone could be better and I hope that your
critique can be taken /collectively/ rather than merely for those who
question MSG, ICANN legitimacy etc. Its a party we can all go to : )
Let's be optimistic about your invite, and I am happy to play my
marginal role - but not in the face of provocation unfortunately...
Riaz
On 2012/08/04 07:34 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
> Riaz,
>
> it is interesting that in the same breath in which you call a number
> of people a "coarse and vulgar bunch", in ways that make it difficult
> to separate those you mean to debase from those you don't, you choose
> to characterize some subset of people as "more Catholic than the
> Pope", "coarse and vulgar", and other terms which you may guess some
> might find between inadequate and offensive.
>
> Where there may be a flaw in your argumentation is, interestingly,
> where opportunity for real dialog lies.
>
> You may imagine that positions like the ones you often present, and
> their delivery, are equally alienating to others.
>
> One of them - and this one may cut both ways - is the creation of a
> Feindbild, in which A assumes that B is X just because a part of
> his/her positions are like some of X, sound like part of X, or are
> conflated in the reader's minds to be like X.
>
> When that happens each of us may be "seeing red" and not noticing
> important parts of the conversation, such as people being equally
> committed to build a system and to fix its faults. One instance would
> be people trying to carry on the task of building ICANN, yet keeping
> it within size and mission, and trying their best to solve the flaws
> of asymmetric USG power.
>
> Tell me what I may be seeing wrong, in a similar way, in your
> position, that can open up a dialogue and throw down or at least
> soften the walls of the tunnel situation in which we land again and
> again.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> ! !! !!! !!!!
> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO
>
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO
>
> SMS +525541444475
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob
> [riaz.tayob at gmail.com]
> *Enviado el:* sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:25
> *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran
> *Asunto:* [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence?
>
>
> On 2012/08/03 03:30 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com
>> <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at istaff.org
>>> <mailto:jcurran at istaff.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal
>>> contracting for these
>>> > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of
>>> critical Internet
>>> > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management
>>> to the RIRs, the
>>> > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the
>>> Affirmation of Commitments.
>>>
>>> Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it
>>> takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among
>>> the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of
>>> sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these
>>> positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have
>>> talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines.
>>>
>> If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with
>> regards to its positive
>> steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not
>> argue with that...
>
> PR is one thing. Disinterested discourse in civil society is quite
> another. There are many who take an ICANN line, defending the "faith"
> - and are try to be more Catholic than the pope. Effectiveness
> arguments are INSUFFICIENT regarding claims of legitimacy. And of
> course in civil society ICANN "loyalists" (paid hacks or genuine
> believers) are overal IMHO rather coarse and vulgar bunch (needs be
> said). So there PR is one thing, and civil society engagement (based
> on reason - which is not too high a standard to cope with diversity)
> another.
>
>
>
>>> > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture
>>> of total unwillingness"...
>>>
>>> So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man
>>> in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines'
>>> that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully
>>> calculated omissions.
>>>
>> Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG
>> track record in
>> facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception
>> of the Internet. Like
>> many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that
>> has been an enabler of
>> discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which
>> might easily not
>> have otherwise occurred.
>
> Ah but one cannot just take a single type of approach to this.
> Dialectically (in the Hegelian sense) MSG has been seen by some as a
> good alternative to actually doing something about the legitimacy
> issue. Name calling (anti-Internet propaganda sounds so similar to
> "there can be only one root") has been the forte of the coarse and
> vulgar, and ab initio takes the wind out of the sails of any genuine
> engagement/arguments.
>
>>> >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer
>>> a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the
>>> USG, as opposed
>>> > the Internet community itself?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>> Thanks for raising this important topic!
>
> The issue is that the combined might (i.e. power) of USG, ICANN
> (employees, hacks & believers & wannabe's) in an MSG institutional
> setting (where scant regard is given for corporate domination -
> perhaps because of the "quaint" definition of "private sector" in the
> US that includes both non-profit and for-profit) kinda makes it hard
> to have a civilised reasonable discussion about these topics.
>
> Yeah, people engage up to a point... so this needs to be said - just
> so that there is no doubt: if one does not conflate technical
> (effectiveness) with social then the legitimacy argument has and
> continues to have merit. And issues of where is your evidence or
> technical precision, are often (not always) raised, but NOT as a means
> to deal with the issue - but to fob it off. Now some on this list may
> present themselves as playing the game (because that is how the game
> is played)... not all are convinced by that wonderful alleged Bushism
> (elected 2x btw;), you can fool some of the people some of the time
> and those are the ones you should concentrate on.
>
> While some/few (in case there are others of my persuasion - but
> speaking for myself only) of us know our relative powerless, and very
> aware of the sophisticated hounding of our views, _we do believe in
> the reality of choice_, and engagement to bring about changes in an
> evolutionary way... so the real test will be weather these
> communication of technical details can actually stand up to being
> "neutral" in terms of legitimacy... after all Cassandra did warn about
> the Trojan Horse...
>
>> /John
>>
>> Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may
>> lack coherence;
>> use at your own risk.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120805/740c3995/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list