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

[McTim]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I don't think there is anyone on this list who argues for this.  You
(and MG) clearly don't understand this.



 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.
>

Sticking to one's principles is not playing a "game"!

> 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.

It's undeniable that nations states regulate Internet activities
within their borders.  I'm not happy about this, but recognise that
little can be done about it.

Thinking that a global agreement on Internet regulation would give us
more freedom and a more open Internet is hopelessly naive.


 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...


I don't think that because the Googles/Facebooks/eBays, etc share the
same opinion as the ISOCs/CDT/Accessnow, etc folks on ITRs that that
means that they are wrong.  It just means that CS and Internet
companies share the same values on an open and free Internet.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

>
>
> 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>
> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-------------- 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