[governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE)

[Riaz K Tayob]

RP

Thanks for this, and the link.

I am not worried about containers and their labels, it is the content. 
Call it what you like, increasing democracy, improving relationships, 
MS, or whatever... the problem is that even on these formulations there 
is not simultaneous possibility of engaging in such a transformative 
process that recognises the 'other'... you can play, as long as you play 
nice with ICANN or other US interests. Power I can deal with if there is 
space for some contestability. On this list I am afraid, forget 
political action, despite Norbert's efforts, a lot still needs to be 
done for working with the established TW perspective (by this I mean the 
loose network of post colonials). But hey if it makes things happen, why 
not because it is change we are interested in.

Curran was excellent when he responded regarding how he saw the 
evolution of the system. I was surprised, very in fact. And there was a 
sophistication not present in much of what shapes discourse on this 
list. Perhaps more of this will come through... I am sure that most of 
TW will go for reforms that are meaningful even if incremental. But it 
is important for people to understand that it is a democratic choice not 
to participate in processes as well. One cannot even get reasonable 
engagement (much better after Norbert) even if one concedes the great 
work that current arrangements allow. We are put on the treadmill like 
hamsters justifying old positions and repeating them, while new 
arguments are tested on us as if we were guinea pigs to see how we 
respond, when illegitimacy as an issue is a non-issue.

I do not know how to explain how callous this sounds to my third world 
sensibility. So yours is a refreshing interlude and hope you can both 
push this and take us as chip on shoulder muppets, but without malice!

Thanks so much!


On 2013/05/29 11:11 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message 
> <CACAaNxgXcy2--ajMRdhL8gtmeMrNede6e_dT3Lhs6Css8Q5iJw at mail.gmail.com>, 
> at 15:41:58 on Tue, 28 May 2013, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> writes
>> At what point did the USG involvement in administration of Internet
>> resources become illegitimate?  Certainly, one can't argue that in a
>> completely US funded network of networks research program that a USG
>> role in administration was illegitimate, so it had to be at some point
>> in its evolution.  Can you name that point?
>
> I don't like the word "illegitimate" in this context, but the 
> landscape has indeed evolved and roles have changed, and so that we 
> don't repeat earlier mistakes it's important to have a sense of history.
>
> This was one of the milestones (tender document for InterNIC) which 
> saw the Internet tangibly move away from the USG, but as we know it 
> was far from being a clean break:
>
> http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1992/nsf9224/nsf9224.txt
>


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