[governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)

[parminder]

Hi Bill,

Before I engage with your surprisingly status quoist politics, let me 
point out some important factual untruths in your email, mostly about 
me/ my positions/ activities....

On Friday 10 August 2012 12:48 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Tom

> Snip

> You'd also have to assemble a strong coalition of demandeurs to even 
> get it on the UN agenda.  While Parminder seems to be convinced that 
> billions across the entire global South are just seething with rage 
> over who signs off on zone changes, I've asked before for some 
> evidence of who exactly we're taking about here without getting replies.

So you really dont know? For instance, please see the statement 
<http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet> 
signed by more than 65 organisations worldwide, and more than 125 
individuals, who signed it in around just 10 days before the May 18th 
meeting on enhanced cooperation. BTW, this statement was also positively 
referred to a press statement by UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural 
rights and Special Rapporteur on FoE, which was entitled ' It is crucial 
to address who and what shapes the Internet today 
<http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/press%20release%20by%20UNspecial%20rapporteur.pdf>' 
issued on the occasion on the meeting on 'enhanced cooperation'.

Now, I do know for sure that you had read this joint civil society 
statement because you have quoted parts of it in an IGC discussion.

What would be a proof to you that global South really sees iniquitous 
global IG as a problem? One puts one's required level of evidence high 
or low depending simply on what ones wants to believe, or not. In fact, 
it is not I or IT for Change that is living in a glass bubble, it is a 
form of global civil society involved with IG which is not in connection 
with what the rest of world is really thinking!

>  Probably one could compile an initial list of governments at least by 
> looking at larger, upper income countries like the BRICS whose general 
> diplomatic stance is that they deserve seats at all tables 
> commensurate with their ascendent wealth and power, as well as 
> authoritarian regimes in the ME and elsewhere. Whether all their 
> citizens would feel the same way, know knows.  And for a lot of other 
> countries, this is pretty far down their list of priorities relative 
> to other Internet and non-internet issues.  They might be persuaded to 
> sign onto some G77 and China statement through arm twisting and 
> side-payments (football stadiums seem to work well for China) and the 
> usual presumption that group solidarity increases their influence, but 
> the level of actual commitment may vary.

You seem to notice allurements by a BRICS country very easily, and 
ignore what all lengths, legitimate and illegitimate, US and its allies 
go to get country votes on their side. And this is historical so well 
known in geo-politics.  For instance, the almost unbelievable overdrive 
that the US admin is on currently in trying to get countries on its side 
on global IG issues is widely known. Just try to be a little more 
even-handed, Bill.

>  I know I've asked governments before about G77 statements and been 
> told oh that's not really our position but we have to go along with 
> the group (have heard this in Europe too, for that matter).

They are just trying to be friendly to you, Bill :). What they speak are 
country positions. Dont be taken by their polite manners...
>
> I've argued before that the only way one could really start the 
> conversation would be to outline said plausible alternative and why 
> its risks/costs are less than the certainties/benefits of the SQ.  I 
> believe Parminder objected along the lines of this is putting the 
> burden on the oppressed etc but don't want to paraphrase incorrectly 
> and get flamed, so he can perhaps reiterate.

Well, a good case of being damned if you will, and damned if you wont! I 
dont know whether you are unhappy about developing countries not 
positing alternatives, or about civil society actors like my organisation.

As for countries doing it; India proposed the CIRP proposal. It did so 
precisely because India believed that for too long the discussion has 
been in the air, and it needed some concrete proposal(s) on the ground 
to make any movement forward on the EC issue - a position that now you 
seem to be taking. India's proposal ends with such open hearted candour 
basically seeking engagement of other actors with this proposal and 
keenness to listen to other views which it is almost unusual in making 
such proposals.......... But I did not find much, or any, engagement 
with that proposal other than most extreme and unfair characterisations 
of the proposal...    On the other hand, at the process level, how to go 
forward on a meaningful dialogue on the issue - IBSA has been asking for 
a CSTD working group on EC since 2010 with little tractions......   
(BTW, during WSIS Brazil gave a very detailed proposal for democratising 
CIR management which can be seen in a chapter by Carlos in a UN ICT Task 
Force book edited by you.) What else do you want these countries to 
do??? Why so high standards for chastity for developing countries? When 
you are so so very forgiving and 'understanding' of what US does and why 
wrt global IG - domestic considerations and all....

It is, in fact, the so called global IG civil society that has always 
failed to constructively engage with the positions or views proposed by 
developing countries (even when they are not authoritarian countries) 
rejecting them summarily as simply obnoxious and not worthy to even talk 
about. (And we see this tendency continue from the current thread of 
discussion)

As for IT for Change offering alternatives; you can hardly say we shy 
from doing so..... We proposed a UN Committee like CIRP even before 
India did (though we did not list the oversight function in our 
proposal, we were, and remain, more interested in the functions that 
OECD's CCICP does), we have proposed WG on enhanced cooperation (EC), We 
have insisted on IGF discussions on EC long before the current 
enthusiasm for IGF discussion on EC (whose timing and opportunism is 
questionable)....  At the CSTD 2012 meeting we proposed that India's 
CIRP proposal be modified to take out the oversight function, which 
should be taken to a different body........ on the IGC list too, during 
the 'oversight' discussion in June, we proposed some models, we 
encouraged Norbert to complete his proposal and commented on, in the 
current thread we have been proposing means to redistribute ownership of 
root ops, even yesterday in my email to Ian I proposed the outlines of 
an alternative for root zone authorisation........ You got it completely 
wrong here Bill.

parminder










>  But my view's unchanged, you can't start the conversation without 
> something sensible and concrete written down for people to focus on. 
>  Starting with "we're pissed but it's not up to us to give the 
> alternative" just won't move anything.
>
> In any event, the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that 
> this has absolutely no place in the ITRs.  The ITRs are not a 
> framework agreement on IG, they're a high-level treaty of rather 
> questionable utility that pertains to how traditional telecom services 
> offered to the general public should be organized at the political 
> level.  DNS matters absolutely do not fit in here even if the Russians 
> and some Arab countries would like to stir it into the pot, and its 
> inclusion would be a regressive step that would correctly engender 
> such extensive Reservations as to make it meaningless.
>
> And in the meanwhile, while we concentrate on this, the rest of global 
> civil society will go on debating other global IG issues that actually 
> bite much more hard on citizens around the world, e.g.rampant 
> surveillance, censorship, securitization, propertyization, access 
> costs and availability, opening up supposedly democratic 
> intergovernmental processes, etc.  So the distance between the IGC and 
> other progressive networks could just fester and grow at a moment when 
> others are trying to come together a bit.
>
> Otherwise, I'm optimistic about making this the caucus' cause célèbre.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120810/2a031af0/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