[governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE

Tue May 28 14:32:03 EDT 2013

Possibly, except that those I consider a minority viewpoint are just as, if not more, vocal on this list at least than I am.

I am counting heads here, not the number of times a particular opinion is voiced.  Unscientific of course but well ..

--srs (iPad)

On 28-May-2013, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated assertions concerning majority and minority opinions on this list (or in CS as a whole… Could it be that what you are considering a "majority" may simply be louder and more persistent/insistent voices…
>  
> M
>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE
>  
> Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD economies.  Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate because it doesn't share that consensus.
>  
> Ask anybody at all that has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who would be rather careful and specific in not coining new phraseology like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get this consensus viewpoint.  I can think of people in Nepal, Kenya and lots of other countries that would meet your definition of "single rooter".
> 
> Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At least that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the charter says something to the contrary when others read it.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130529/1d55f2c7/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