[governance] Bloomberg - The Overzealous Prosecution of Aaron Swartz

[riaz.tayob at gmail.com]

Apologies John. You are correct... And my point was perhaps meant in general and not in particular to your input. Yours is an evolutionary approach, even if we differ somewhat....

...,...

On 20 Jan 2013, at 8:44 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:59 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> This is the interpretation we make (and we are entitled to make it) when for instance:
>> 
>> 1. Some argue for ICANN etc to be regulated by US laws (state or otherwise) - and that this is sufficient.
>> 
>> 2. Others argue that legitimacy of the current structure of governance is not an issue, and that work ought rather to be done within the system. And that it is a none issue.
> 
> Alas, my comment on your mention of "US Exceptionalism" was simply to note 
> that I do not consider it inevitable that the situation (in particular, with respect to 
> overzealous prosecution nor the specific laws used against Aaron) will improve 
> simply because of discussion and some presumed inherently superior nature of 
> the US structures in these areas...   This doesn't mean that it won't get better, 
> but simply that there is no automatic reason to presume that it will simply due 
> to discussion in the wonderful U.S. of A.  (note - I do believe it will result in
> improvements to to the specific provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse 
> Act, but that's because of the acts of specific folks like Rep. Zoe Lofgren and 
> should not otherwise be considered inevitable)
> 
> Similarly, I do not consider that structures used for governance of critical Internet 
> resources (e.g. name and number identifiers) to be inherently superior simply due
> to the particular circumstances of origin.  In fact, I completely discount the origin
> and simply consider the structures on their demonstrated merits and weaknesses
> (i.e. good ideas are good ideas regardless of origin)  The bias towards the status
> quo is not a ringing endorsement of the existing structures, nor a heartfelt belief
> that the structures must be superior because of US origin and exceptionlism, 
> but simply reflect the reality that there is an existing functional system which
> has enabled the growth and success of the Internet to date, and an absence 
> of any alternative described in sufficient detail to be demonstrably superior.
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> Disclaimers:  My views alone.  Supporting or contrary viewpoints are welcomed
> from all individuals regardless of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation 
> or disability and will be considered on their merits to the best of my ability.
> 
> 

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