[governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes?

[Riaz K Tayob]

McTim

Well I am not about to trawl for names and their arguments, but let me 
summarise - which is from my perspective: bearing in mind that the 
"list" has an imbalance in what is considered balanced.

When push comes to shove, as the saying goes, the argument is that one 
MUST engage with ICANN to achieve some reforms of the system. The 
question of legitimacy is dealt with here in two primary ways. One, and 
often the most vociferous, is to "ignore" the issue of legitimacy. The 
second is to say we need to reform it from within (which simply begs the 
question of how they relate to those "outside" the system - which ranges 
from active engagement (I was pleasantly surprised by the candid yet 
studied feedback IT4C submission received on this list :) so its not all 
bad) to disdain. It is not that I question the sincerity of those who 
work from within, it is the hardest to deal with insiders who seek to do 
what needs to be done in the constraints they find themselves in. That 
said, it also goes up and down and round and about.  So it is not just 
about people, but also how the context plays out. Look at a recent 
thread. I and another was accused of an ad hominem attack on a 
discussion that immediately went substantive. Not to put to fine a point 
on it, but how does an ad hominem attack go substantive because by 
definition it cannot. This imbalance in treatment of views and 
personalities is incredible to watch, but from my or "our" perspective 
it is easy to make deductions about the game being played. And lets 
agree that ICANN and its followers are remarkable, they stymied with 
single root the multiple rooters... which is remarkable, even if one 
disagrees. So, it may or may not be an explicit US Exceptionalism 
position, but in practice on my deductions it is. Although there are 
some who put it openly as US exceptionalism, and that is a valid and 
legitimate view within civil society. But I would be silly if that were 
allowed and legitimacy issues were then 
"excluded"/marginalised/ridiculed or even subject to faux attacks.

On rights issues there is also a disjunct between developing country 
moves to assert control and Developed countries. The standards seem to 
me to differ. After all it is better to live in the advanced countries 
as these protections go, ain't it? That is fine as it goes, but cannot 
be generalised.

As much as techies may like to think this is not politics, some of us 
(or simply me) take it almost all as politics. And that means that even 
seemingly neutral positions are placed on a political spectrum.

But don't get your knickers in a knot about any of this because I and 
some of us are happy to change our minds if persuaded of the validity of 
another position or placement of a group/view on the political spectrum...

Riaz


On 2012/12/05 11:22 PM, McTim wrote:
> Riaz,
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com 
> <mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>     Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these
>     approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room
>     for disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton,
>     for some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be
>     included in the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from
>     his Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no
>     different from American Exceptionalists on this list.
>
>
> Can you point to any of those?  I have challenged you on this before, 
> and from what I can see there are none (even amongst the Americans on 
> the list, some of whom are amongst the strongest voices for 
> "internationalising ICANN").
>
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A 
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121206/af57dbb6/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