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

[michael gurstein]

As with any discussion of this kind readers are encouraged to read both
sides and decide on which interpretation they feel is the strongest/most
appropriate.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 11:39 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: Clarifying the arguments: -->RE: [governance] Bloomberg - The
Overzealous Prosecution of Aaron Swartz

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