[governance] A false consensus is broken

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Dec 22 01:47:31 EST 2012 

Hopefully we are done with the inquest into figurative and other 
meanings of 'walkout', though we all know it was never really about it. 
Before I come to what it really is or was about, let me too indulge a 
bit on the meaning and context of 'walking out'.....

1. When countries declare their disassociation from a ongoing treaty etc 
process, it is very often called out as a walkout. Walking out of trade 
talks, climate negotiations, doha round of WTO.... Such is a regular use 
of the phrase.

2. WCIT was an event with the sole objective of negotiating a treaty. 
Declaring the intention not to sign the treaty as the process is still 
on is called as walking out on or of the process..... That is what the 
US did, and that is a walkout. (By the way, the head of US delegation 
was reported to use the term 'waking out of WCIT' is a figurative manner 
mid way during the conference. Although he later denied he said what was 
attibuted to him, the concerned reporter, I think from CommDay, later 
confirmed that he had indeed said so.)

3. Being from a poor Southern background, I am forced to take the cover 
of what an American said. Well, a regular columnist of the New York 
Times,  Eric Pfanner wrote that US "refused to sign the document and 
*left in a huff*"... Did anyone see the US huffing.. Were the members of 
the US delegation huffing or the whole country.... Those on the ground 
can please let me know. I am really very eager. Avri, Adam, McTim, 
Rony..... any one of you know the 'facts' in this case....

4. I knew the vulnerabilities of a poor Southie writing what would get 
forwarded to the mighty in the IG space... I knew that the wolves are 
out there..... and so, I actually quoted Eric Pfanner in my article. And 
it was from his expression that I built the 'walking out' thing..... 
Hope, a day will come when we from the post-colonial South would not 
need to do such kinds of things to earn legitimacy for simple facts that 
otherwise are there for anyone to see..... I must have read 40-50 
articles and statements and postings before I wrote what I wrote, 
because, as I said, I knew the wolves will come pouncing. And they did 
come in any case, if for nothing else, to interrogate the use of English 
language by me....

5. I am sure Terry Kramer himself must have read the NYT article... I 
did not see him or anyone else issue angry disclaimers for factual 
inaccuracy which they definitely would have if there indeed would have 
been one (I mean about 'leaving in a huff'). So, this is a case of the 
above mentioned wolves being more loyal then the emperor. Very worrying 
tendency for civil society indeed.

6. And of course, all of you too read the referred NYT article, which 
was forwarded by me with the subject like 'NYT expresses surprise at US 
*walkout*'.

7. There continues to be many articles in the Northern press using the 
term 'US walkout' for what happened, most of them though agreeing with 
what the US did, which is not the point here. It is just about the use 
of that term and the kind of vicious reaction that it attracted.

The vicious reaction was of course to forcefully shut up anyone who but 
dare give a view or analysis which does not meekly accept the dominant 
discourse on the subject - which, in my view is guided and led by the 
global political an economic elites, who unfortunately have been able to 
build a very loyal following in what is being called as civil society. 
As said, I see this as a very disturbing trend. Therefore the issue is 
beyond just the uncivility of the response, it is about what and who do 
they represent to become so vicious just on reading an opinion piece 
that says that US walked out of the treaty process, and may have made a 
diplomatic blunder in doing so.

parminder


On Saturday 22 December 2012 09:28 AM, Tracey Naughton wrote:
> Arguing about English is an excluding distraction not conducive to the 
> basis of multi-stakeholder dialogue. Sad to see on a CS list. The 
> article was an opinion piece.
>
> That said, as someone who remains very interested in the post WSIS 
> goings on, I have appreciated the diversity of opinions that have 
> emerged to assist me with understanding what actually happened at 
> WCIT, so thanks for your enthusiastic discussions.
>
> Tracey Naughton
> Australia
>
>
> On 22 Dec 2012, at 12:22 PM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> All of this phony outrage is a bit much…
>
> Being outraged about a zillion dollar corporation not wanting to pay 
> its fair share of taxes… that's something to be outraged about…
>
> Being outraged at countries in the North turning their backs on 
> agreements to extend broadband access to countries in the South… 
> that's something to be outraged about…
>
> Being outraged at countries not willing to sign agreements 
> re-interating already agreed to commitments in the area of Human 
> Rights… that's something to be outraged about…
>
> But whether the US walked out, tromped out, slid out, or flew out of 
> the meeting on gossamer wings (after refusing to sign an agreement 
> accepted by 2/3rds of the countries attending) … that seems to me to 
> be a matter of the utmost triviality … of interest, dare I say, only 
> to those who don't have anything more substantial to argue against…
>
> M
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Koven Ronald
> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 4:27 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; lehto.paul at gmail.com 
> <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>; avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>
> *Cc:* gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken
>
> What the devil is a "figurative walkout" ? There was misrepresentation 
> or factual error. Period.
>
> No reputable media outlet would or should accept that. A correction 
> would be in order.
>
> Orwellian language is not in order.
>
> If we can't count on basic intellectual honesty, there is no sense in 
> these discussions.
>
> Bests, Rony Koven
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>>
> To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>; Avri Doria <avri at acm.org 
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
> Cc: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:02 pm
> Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken
>
>
> But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone 
> physically locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting.  
> "Walked out" has both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - 
> as was obvious to me at least - intended the phrase in a figurative 
> way.   This should be especially obvious because it was a country 
> (having no legs) that walked out, not a specific person.
>
> Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made a 
> charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not 
> even sure why people are so hot on this), and *appoint myself judge 
> and dismiss this claim, *on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly 
> figurative meaning and the actual facts, even as alleged by the 
> inquisitors, fit without the broad meaning of "walked out". :)
>
> The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation."  Why the 
> _pre-occupation_ with this? It appears that question is unlikely to be 
> answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough 
> facts before me to do so.  :)
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
> PS  If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge 
> here, then they should have a very similar problem with those who have 
> accused and also called this an open and shut case of "you can't have 
> your own facts" - which is just judgment in a different form, and a 
> self-appointed judgment at that.  In order to reach my "judgment" I've 
> looked at the facts in the light most favorable to the accused, given 
> the rights of free expression at stake.
>
> All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about 
> the extent to which there was or wasn't a /figurative/ walk out, and 
> that could be enlightening given the personal observations of some on 
> the list but which devolved into something more /ad hominem/ in the 
> nature of a game of gotcha.
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org 
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a 
> journalistic medium...
> >
> > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn 
> of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox 
> News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total 
> "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely 
> political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate...
>
> It is simple:
>
> Because you are not permitted to have your own facts.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>
> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org  <mailto: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
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121222/cbf74217/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

More information about the Governance mailing list