[governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community"
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Mon Jun 10 15:42:36 EDT 2013
To be clear:
The (or one of the) Third World analytics regarding legitimacy and human
rights has been confirmed by this incident. *There is nothing new *in
terms of our argumentation - it merely confirms our worst fears. The
truth is not improved by overstatement. The ONLY thing, from this
perspective is that, it cannot be ignored any longer nor can we pretend
that it does not exist (I am sure lots will try).
The baton has passed to those without sympathy for the issues (like
legitimacy - but not only that) and values implicit in that world view
- as evidenced by their politics (of which this list archive is
testament). The matter cannot be ignored or as easily denied (fudging
possible of course) with 'effortless superiority'.
For me (hence Niemoller), to posit the possibility of work together is
to misrecognize the politics of the IGC and its civil society reps (and
perhaps the MAG too) some of whom have an active history of limiting or
forestalling 'third world' or third world 'type' issues. The strategy of
divide and rule has moved a lot further. It is now fragment and dominate.
Is legitimacy in internet governance even an issue? What gives the US
the right? This is not just an American privacy or freedom of expression
issue, it is a legitimacy issue. So let us not be presumptuous because
some people treat values like reeds that bend in the wind but snap back
to hit you in the face. The power relations on this issue has not
changed, ours is/was a mere moral democratic argument.
If there is to be unity, then it must be principled. And if there are
practical suggestions on how to deal with this, we will engage as we
have done in the past. But we are not nitpicking around false analytics
that seek to save face on this matter, as the heirs of single rooting
now find themselves obliged to do when provoked. This matter must be
treated with the seriousness it deserves, otherwise we do ourselves a
disservice.
Is the IGC ready for such unity? I should hope so, but such idealism is
tempered by realism. But as always, happy to engage and also to be
surprised.
On 2013/06/10 09:33 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> Dear Riaz,
> My response was intended to speak to Kerry's comment:
>
>
> .... We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people
> have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap.
> Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not useful and only
> causes division when we should be seeking unification and consensus.
>
> "They" are real experts at divide and rule; if "we" allow ourselves to
> be divided, we will be ruled for sure.
>
> You quote from Martin Niemoller
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
> In the context of your reply I find this a little strange, because I
> have always understood Niemoller's words to be one of the great human
> appeals to unity and solidarity and responsibility to one's fellow
> human beings.
>
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
>
>
>
> On 10 June 2013 12:29, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com
> <mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> It is Sisyphean task.
>
> But please let us avoid revisionism. We need to test the veracity
> and politics of colleagues on this list and see if they have been
> justified in taking the positions they do.
>
> Cream rises to the top, but crap also floats unfortunately. So let
> us not be too hasty in calls for unity. The wheat needs to be
> separated from the chaff. After all nothing like reality or
> evidence to do this job. After all, you all are anti-American by
> doing this by some definitions of the term on this list. And let
> us not forget that the people pushing these views have had
> inordinate play on this list so they have to reap what they have
> sown, and be graded by their perspicacity. On this issue in this
> space, slow is better.
>
>
> First they came for the socialists
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist>,
> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
>
> Then they came for the trade unionists
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unionist>,
> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
>
> Then they came for the Jews <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews>,
> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
>
> Then they came for me,
> and there was no one left to speak for me.
>
>
>
> On 2013/06/10 06:50 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>> From a practical point of view this is a bad time to show
>> fractures within the civil society group.
>> Many (most??) of us have formally identified ourselves as "civil
>> society". If this means anything at all it means that we hold
>> some values in common.
>> If we all push together at the same boulder - who knows? - we
>> might even be able to get it to the top of the hill without its
>> rolling down and squashing us.
>> Although since stone-rolling was the punishment for deceit this
>> may not be the best image to use in the context.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus
>> Or perhaps like Camus we "must imagine Sisyphus happy" and keep
>> on struggling.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>> On 10 June 2013 10:37, Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com
>> <mailto:kerry at kdbsystems.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but
>> it does provide a plausible technical scenario.
>>
>> As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them
>> conversations. We are a community that is made up of
>> communities. Many people have their fingers in many
>> communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce
>> every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes
>> division when we should be seeking unification and consensus.
>>
>> Kerry Brown
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130610/0ca98f3b/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list