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

[Riaz K Tayob]

Suresh

Will be brief, but been over this many times on this list.


On 2012/12/06 01:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Riaz bhai, can you please make this a bit clearer?  I tried hard, but 
> .. I can't quite see your point.
>
> 1. What is wrong with change from within, in ICANN, or anywhere else? 
> And do you see any barriers to participation at ICANN?  Compared to 
> say participation at the IGF, WCIT, or wherever else?

There is nothing wrong with collaboration, change from within or dealing 
with extant ICANN. LIkewise there is nothing wrong in regarding it as a 
despotic organisation hell bent on maintaining its pre-eminence and has 
a large number of people in toe to do its bidding irrespective of how 
"functional" it is.

If one takes legitimacy and/or participation/inclusiveness seriously 
then *the relationship between the inside and the outside* (those who 
exercise their democratic rights NOT to "join" the ICANN system) becomes 
serious.

And the way this is dealt with on this list leaves a lot to be desired.

Just look at how tedious discussions provoked by the "usual suspects" 
Gurstein, Parminder, Guru, Auerbach, Norbert are ... some issues are 
subject to inquisitions, while others views are not. I don't care either 
way as reason is the ticket for engagement and as long as that is the 
tenor I/we can deal with things; and agree to disagree,

>
> 2. If a technology is technically infeasible and risky from an 
> engineering standpoint, it remains that way unless work is actually 
> done on the technology.  Doing a socio political analysis of the 
> technology will not alter it one whit, or make it any more or less 
> feasible than it already is.

Let me deal with the Luddite in me. What you say is true. But Lessig 
makes the point (long time since I read him, but well worth a read) that 
the matter is not so black and white as it seems. The tech can and is 
often policy. They are mutually constitutive. This makes more sense, 
than saying well web URL is a trade mark. Engineering nor legally was 
this the case. Yet it is largely now.

>
> 3. Most of the "ad hominem" was of two kinds -

We can differ on this. All I am doing implicitly is pointing to how 
imbalanced the claims of imbalance are from those who claim to be 
standing for balance. I trust I make myself obscure.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121206/c3b1ce2c/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