[governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE

[Riaz K Tayob]

On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we will have of actually achieving  multistakeholder control over ICANN's narrow bit of turf.

Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is 
political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it is 
always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is not 
legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as Gadhiji said 
to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is ineffective has not been 
in bed with a mosquito.

Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of the 
complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the single 
rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I find the 
tenor much better - particularly when it comes to ensuring a) diversity 
of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I say it) tolerance.

And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be sure 
so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective, those who 
are complaining loudest are those who have variously sought actively to 
marginalise certain Third Worldist views from simply being expressed. /A 
combination I dare say that is too coincidental to be improbable - and 
happy to be dissuaded from this view/. As the African proverb goes, you 
can't comb my hair when I am not around, which I suppose is the 
intention of agenda curtailment. It would not be so bad if it were more 
refined and empathic than its typical formulations.

I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You see it 
from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective of being on 
the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society representatives (hereafter 
HegCS) particularly single rooters, history and context would be 
required to understand what is happening. The articulation of single 
rooter doctrine that chose one particular version and in effect declined 
or marginalised technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is 
something that should never happen again.

Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the co-cos 
at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement, because if the 
laws are flattened to get at the devil and the devil turns on you, all 
the laws being flattened... we are simply concerned with the rules of 
the road, as are you.

As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness (in a 
countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable to 
coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's actions 
can then be put in the appropriate context

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130528/d0d92f82/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