Clarifying the arguments: -->RE: [governance] Bloomberg - The Overzealous Prosecution of Aaron Swartz

Sun Jan 20 12:02:15 EST 2013

Following on from Norbert's very useful attempt to shift the grounds of the
discussion away from a discussion of political terminology/political
rhetoric and towards the more (and quite real) differences of
perception/values underlying these...

(and please be aware that I'm not arguing for one position or another in the
below, I'm simply trying to clarify underlying assumptions/expectations.bare
with me, the point I'm trying to make needs the fairly convoluted run up but
I think it is one that goes to the very heart of our collective enterprise
here in the IGC.

McTim in the below says

Well it is what we have (talking about the root servers issue) and there are
significant barriers to overcome to eliminate this (US Congress for one)
that makes working on this issue very low down on the priority list for many
of us.

                1. McTim's argument here is that because there are
"significant barriers" (as for example the political stance of a particular
national legislative body) to what might otherwise be normatively desireable
then the issue has (should have?) a relatively low priority i.e. because
something is politically unfeasible therefore it should not have priority in
our discussions

Again there is no feasible alternative (except my bitBoat or Internetistan
idea maybe).  Would you like FB, Google, Yahoo!, all the tier 1's etc, etc
to be regulated by a UN CIRP?  There is no way you will get any significant
number of nations to give up sovereignty in this way.

                2. that is because of the above, a number of potentially
(normatively) desirable "technical" options are foreclosed. This leaves the
status quo as not only the only "technical" option but also the only
"political" option (in terms of "sovereignty") for some countries

(Therefore)  What is wrong and unacceptable is the labeling of recognition
of a pretty fixed reality as "wrong and unacceptable"! What is also wrong
and unacceptable is the notion that those of us who advocate for a single
unified Internet  are somehow suspect.

                3. that is because of the political stance of a particular
national legislative body something has become accepted as the necessary
technical option and this in turn has now been accepted as the necessary
"political" option by certain countries.  This has now become a "pretty
fixed reality" and thus what started out as a "political" position has now
become a necessary and uncontestable "reality". As a "reality" it is of
course,  not subject to reasonable challenge.

I can understand the train of logic that McTim is following above. In
philosophical terms this is usually called "pragmatism" (wikipedia:
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition centered on the linking of practice
and theory. It describes a process where theory is extracted from practice,
and applied back to practice to form what is called intelligent practice..
Pragmatism as a philosophical movement began in the United States in the
1870s.)

To make some extremely gross generalizations, Pragmatism is about problem
solving.  Norms (values) emerge out of the solving of problems.  Not
surprisingly pragmatism is highly identified with technical thinking and for
example, an engineering/problem solving approach to larger philosophical and
other issues (including political ones). This differs from the position of
most schools of thought (not surprisingly since not many philosophers or
political/normative thinkers are engineers) where norms are established
first and then those are used as the basis on which problems are solved.  

I leave it to my distinguished colleagues in the IGC to assess the relative
significance that should be given to a "pragmatic" approach to the questions
we typically address as compared for example, to a "normative" approach.

As an aside based on the above we might see a number of the disputes in the
IGC as reflecting the broader growing pains of the Internet as it
transitions from a technical phenomenon to a socio-political one. 

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 6:50 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] Bloomberg - The Overzealous Prosecution of Aaron
Swartz

(and perhaps

> in protection of its 'basic principles', whatever it may mean) and 

> therefore some degree of continued pre-eminence of the US government 

> in some key IG arrangements, including of the CIRs, is fine/ acceptable...

Well it is what we have and there are significant barriers to overcome to
eliminate this (US Congress for one) that makes working on this issue very
low down on the priority list for many of us.

> 

> 2. anyone is fine with US laws/ courts/ executive/ statutory 

> authorities (FCC, FTC etc) determine much of how the Internet's 

> architecture develops, whether through US law/ jurisdiction's 

> application on the ICANN, or on most of the monopoly global Internet
mega-corporates....

Again there is no feasible alternative (except my bitBoat or Internetistan
idea maybe).  Would you like FB, Google, Yahoo!, all the tier 1's etc, etc
to be regulated by a UN CIRP?  There is no way you will get any significant
number of nations to give up sovereignty in this way.

> 

> In fact, if the IGC can agree that such US exceptionalism is wrong and 

> unacceptable

What is wrong and unacceptable is the labeling of recognition of a pretty
fixed reality as "wrong and unacceptable"!

What is also wrong and unacceptable is the notion that those of us who
advocate for a single unified Internet  are somehow suspect.

--

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/20130120/1c4e297f/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