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

[parminder]

On Friday 10 August 2012 04:37 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 12:10 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> Before I engage with your surprisingly status quoist politics,
>
> I was clear that I don't advocate the SQ but was noting some of the 
> barriers that can't just be wish away.  Please don't start with this 
> kind of twisting things or it will go downhill quickly.

When someone says that anyone wanting a change has to "outline said 
plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the 
certainties/benefits of the SQ", and carries on at length to show - as 
most of your email does - that there isnt any clear demand for change, 
and when that someone is not an appointed neutral referee or something 
but a political player in the arena, then that person's politics is 
legitimately called as status quoist. I stick to my position. In 
politics, no one is neutral, either you agree to be in the status quo, 
or you are sympathetic to talk of alternatives, and likely, have some in 
your mind yourself.......

And when I did describe how alternatives have indeed been proposed, 
unlike what you suggest, you are getting into nuances of those 
alternatives, that are surely worth discussing, but here the only point 
was - indeed, alternatives have been proposed, these cannot be called as 
'non-plausible' even if one has differences with them....

And then you want 'evidence' from me that there indeed is support among 
CS, governments, people etc... and to anything that can be mentioned in 
this regard, your have responses that I can do little about. You say a 
joint CS statement does not mean most people support this position - i 
agree, it doesn’t 'prove' so, but what do you want me to do, hold an 
referendum to satisfy you. You say developing countries may take 
official positions but in private talks most officials confess to you 
that they are really not interested. You say, you are not convinced how 
inclusive and multi-stakeholder is the process of building country 
positions..... which all may be true.... But that kind of unending 
reasoning can be used to be sceptic of every position on anything, 
whatever... the world is hardly close to being perfect. You seem to have 
concluded - there isnt any real demand - even in the developing world - 
for change in status quo.

You chose to believe those whom you speak in private etc, but these 
other more open processes - joint CS statements, stated gov positions - 
above do not meet your requirement of evidence.... You see, I cant do 
much about that. But one thing is clear, that you seem to infer, and 
want to infer, that there is not much demand for change in status quo 
really in terms of CIR management. And you are satisfied with that 
inference.

      Why not respond to what I was saying, rather than to what I
    wasn't?  (Bill)

I read you mostly to say, there isnt much demand for change. I found 
most of the email being about it, and so my response.

    "Do you want to score points against imaginary enemies, or have a
    conversation about what would be required to effectively promote a
    change in the model?" (Bill)

We are not going to agree on who is trying to score points, but, well, 
as I said I read your email mostly making the point that there is 
insufficient evidence of demand for change. However, if the main point 
was something else, i am happy to respond to it. You tell me what you 
think "would be required to effectively promote a change in the model" 
and we can go from there. (I have said it enough times already).


parminder


>
>> 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.
>
> Right I read that.  The signatories cannot be taken as a proxy for 
> "the whole global South thinks," sorry. Anyway, I was asking about 
> governments, particularly governments who've done proper 
> multistakeholder consultations so we know what they're saying may 
> actually reflect some semblance of public opinion rather than just the 
> aspirations of state elites.  For example, I'm sure you would argue 
> that "India" thinks there's an urgent need to multilateralize the USG 
> functions, but I keep talking to Indians who say they don't agree and 
> there's been no open consultations on the matter, it's just the 
> preferences of a few ministries.  So I'm asking for some clarity on 
> the head count, and the counting methodology, in order to be able to 
> assess your claims better.  Nothing wrong with that, one would think.
>>
>> 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!
>
> I don't have your confidence that I know what billions of people 
> who've probably never heard of a root server think, or that I can 
> speak for them.
>>
>>>  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.
>
> I do no such thing, I'm perfectly aware that other countries play 
> alignment politics.  The point here was trying to identify who the 
> dissatisfied may be.
>
>> 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.
>
> See above.  When asking who is on side x, not listing who is on side y 
> doesn't make for unevenhandedness.
>>
>>>  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…
>
> And you know who I've spoken with about what and what their real 
> motives and thinking are because….?
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> I'm not an unhappy guy Parminder.  I was just saying that I recall you 
> objecting to the argument that it's incumbent on proponents of change 
> to propose something plausible if they want to get the conversation 
> going.
>>
>> 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???
>
> Carlos' chapter was good. Does it reflect official Brazilian policy 
> today?  I don't know.
>
>> 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….
>
> Now I'm an advocate of chastity?  Huh.  Anyway, yes, the Indian 
> government made a proposal (which Indian CS and business people I 
> talked to said they had no warning of and did not support, but 
> anyway..).  And it enjoyed quite a bit of prominence in these parts 
> for awhile, you cannot claim it didn't get a hearing.  It had a number 
> of elements in it that were highly problematic (and which reportedly 
> led Mr. Govind to declare India was dropping them as "not well thought 
> out"), which opponents naturally focused on, and some elements that 
> might be sensible depending on xyz factors.  But overall, while I know 
> you feel personally invested in it, you do have to admit, there was no 
> great rush to the side of the proposal.  Even Brazil and South Africa 
> backed away.  Where were the others?  I never heard endorsements from 
> other developing country governments, and recall asking you if there 
> had been any in the UNGA when they introduced it, since you were 
> following that more closely.  No reply.
>>
>> 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)
>
> Why when I say the proponent of change should propose something 
> plausible do you keep turing it around to attack people with 
> nonsequitors?  If we can stick to the issues we can talk, if it's 
> going to be throwing stuff at people I'm not interested.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Got what wrong?  I didn't say IT for Change hasn't made any proposals 
> on IG.  I said to that if there's this big global coalition of 
> countries/peoples who are stewing over root zone signings, please 
> indicate who they are and how you know, so I understand the basis of 
> your claims; and that if you/they want to make this the priority 
> battle and overcome all the various elements of resistance I noted 
> would have to be overcome, advancing a plausible proposal that would 
> provide assurances to those not already in agreement with you would be 
> a logical first step.  I really don't see why that should agitate you 
> or lead to accusations that I'm issuing untruths about your position 
> (case unproven, BTW), putting down people who may think like you, or 
> turning a blind eye to problems with US policy.  Why not respond to 
> what I was saying, rather than to what I wasn't?  Do you want to score 
> points against imaginary enemies, or have a conversation about what 
> would be required to effectively promote a change in the model?
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120810/5781b39d/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