[governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127

[Riaz K Tayob]

Michael

The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" 
adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as 
innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, 
there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, 
purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played.

It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets 
are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if 
not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to 
oversight...

It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" 
and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in 
two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues 
backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps 
people are playing the "game", but perhaps not...

Riaz

On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard 
> against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) 
> when you don't.
>
> And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of 
> management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why 
> you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for 
> example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" 
> should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated 
> leaves me a bit puzzled.
>
> M
>
> *From:*McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> *Cc:* Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways 
> i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off 
> the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if 
> only implicitly) on the other.
>
> I'm only trying to have it one way.   I feel gov'ts have far too much 
> control over what we say and do online.  I don't want an 
> intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy.
>
>     I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of
>     course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if
>     one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an
>     appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative
>     venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems
>     to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many.
>
> Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo 
> does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet 
> Governance mechanisms.
>
> I do not find #3 acceptable.
>
> I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't 
> understand about my position?
>
> -- 
> 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/20121130/2ce6729b/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