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

Fri Dec 7 08:41:29 EST 2012

Au contraire SRS

He called the internationalism phony- it is even highlighted with quotes.

Are you exacerbating matters here? Precision counts in a charge like 
this. What's your game?

On 2012/12/07 09:27 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Parminder, if you persist in using terms like phony to refer to McTim 
> and then call the list police down on Milton for allegedly being rude 
> to you, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
>
> --srs (htc one x)
>
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes?
> Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 12:39 PM
>
>
>
> On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> > Riaz,
> >
> > Like Parminder, you’ve overused this charge of “American
> > exceptionalism,” to the point where it reflects more on you than on
> > the target. Indeed if you, like Parminder, apply it to me it shows
> > that you are completely ignorant of my writings on the subject or that
> > you are simply hurling a blanket epithet at whoever is standing
> > around, whenever they disagree. So, no point in discussing further.
> >
>
> Milton,
>
> Dont know why you are pulling me into this out of nowhere .... but if
> you want me to come in, here i am, at your service :)
>
> (BTW, I must first say that I find your recent comments to Riaz
> extremely rude, and I hope that the concerned duty bearers are taking 
> note.)
>
> So, you object to the use of the term 'US exceptionalism'! You are on
> record asserting repeatedly that you think ICANN should continue to be
> subject to US laws, at least in the areas of regulation of non-profits,
> competition and FoE...... presumable more...... (in any case an entity
> is either subject to a jurisdiction, or it is not; there are no choices
> available for an entity to be subject to some laws and not others).
>
> Have you not said so? Please do let us know if you havent, and even if
> you have changed your mind now.
>
> In the above regard you dont even agree with those who seek, what I call
> as, 'phoney internationalisation' (McTim's case) whereby ICANN
> internationalisation is sought without being able to suggest any
> credible institutional basis for doing it. (You are perhaps too
> politically clued-in and can make out that such phony
> internationalisation without providing the political- institutional
> basis for it is simply not possible.)
>
> You however do not agree for ICANN to be subject to international law,
> or laws of other countries (do you agree to ICANN shifting to New
> Delhi?) , and you want it to be subject to US laws. Now that is
> literately 'US exceptionalism', isnt it! I cant see how the term can be
> applied more accurately than in this case.....
>
> parminder
>
>
> > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz K 
> Tayob
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:06 PM
> > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix
> > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"...
> > (from taxes?
> >
> > Frankly I am not sure what kind of institutionalist Milton is. This is
> > not the Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Rayomond, Richard Ely, E Pershine
> > Smith, Frederich List and JK Galbraith, who all had a keen head for
> > facts and history.
> >
> > Britain used free trade ideas as a means to maintain its dominance
> > over other nations. The workshop of the world that encouraged everyone
> > to liberalise, that free trade (and then classical economics) was
> > best. And in the Pax (?) Americana, neoclassical economics (in
> > infinite disguises) and the Washington Consensus serves the same
> > function.
> >
> > 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. Of course I am aware that in
> > the American context(where what passes for progressive is quit
> > different, this may well be the case. It simply cannot be generalised.
> >
> > And in the "competition" through subsidised efforts Europe builds
> > capabilities - both the tech no-(harware) and -ology (its people). One
> > of the key elements of benefiting from a network is that skills can be
> > diffused. Consumption of technology rich goods is not the same as
> > producing them. Actually in a reverse sort of way the status quoists
> > (exceptionalists, Institutionalists of a special type, neoliberals,
> > etc) seek to maintain the US dominance by playing to that nations
> > comparative advantage - also in institutions like ICANN and the posse
> > that goes with it.
> >
> >
> > On 2012/12/05 10:25 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote:
> >
> >     Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
> >
> >         "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported
> >         by military research contracts, which had no intention of
> >         supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the
> >         general population and succeeded because of telecommunications
> >         liberalization and a free market.
> >
> >     Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily the NSF
> >     action in the 1981-1995 years...
> >     And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture capital
> >     firm, launched in 1999.
> >     And also the military orders in the advanced IT field.
> >     Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy...
> >
> >     The government played an important role in facilitating that
> >     process by privatizing control and paving the way for competition
> >     among ISPs. There is no doubt about that.
> >
> >     Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for dominance
> >     abuse.
> >
> >     While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful
> >     European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete
> >     with Google has been?
> >
> >     I assume you already heard about the networks effect that gives an
> >     advantage to the first big player.
> >     That's exactly why China and other countries protect their
> >     boundaries in order to help their IT industry to find existence.
> >
> >     Do you think that Europe also ought to close their virtual 
> boundaries?
> >
> >     @+, Dom
> >
> >
> >     Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free
> >     market or by the US Gov action?
> >
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121207/217200f8/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