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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Riaz, speaking entirely for myself, nobody pays me a penny (or even an indian paisa to be on the list.  The paisa is, at 55 rupees to the dollar and 100 paise to the rupee, a very small sum indeed, and even when I was a toddler in 1980, you could buy like one tiny boiled sweet for 1 paisa, after which it went out of circulation...)

So no. You don't catch me arguing against legislation or cross border regulation.  I see it and its utility all the time.  What I am arguing, and what others here are arguing, is that the situation is too complex to have one overarching organization trying to regulate everything in this area.  

Especially not a civil regulator in an environment when a large percentage of what you want to regulate against is criminal in nature.  Especially not law enforcement agencies when a lot of this is regulatory in nature.  And especially not telecom regulators when data protection, fair trade, justice / law and a variety of other ministries have a role to play in this.

--srs (iPad)

On 30-Nov-2012, at 18:07, 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. 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> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121130/4bffd131/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