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

[McTim]

Michael,

You misunderstand (or simply mistate) my position, at least partially;

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:02 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)


I'm not talking about the root-servers at all.


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
>

I've argued before (many times) that we should actually engage in IG
fora, but instead we refuse this, and spend all of our time talking
about shape of the table issues or "meta-IG" (read IGF/UN).

While we might want the sky to be pink at all times, it is blue, and
we can't change that.  We do however seek to change that which seems
unlikely to change.  So you are correct, it is partly pragmatic.

>
>
> 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

not really, they are separate issues.   Neither is technical at all.

>
>
>
> (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

How is this "technical"?


 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".

Not neccessary at all, but not likely to change either.

As a "reality" it is of
> course,  not subject to reasonable challenge.

It is subject to challenge, it's just very, very unlikely to happen.

>
>
>
> 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.


I have given my normative option as well, de-nationalisation.

-- 
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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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