Dear Carlos,<br><br><blockquote>"governments could object simply because the name is controversial, or <span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">because one or two governments don’t like the applicant,</span> or because an authoritarian government wants to suppress the kind of content that might be published under a specific top level domain name.<br>
<br>A veto could take place <span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">regardless of whether a proposed domain name violated an international law, and regardless of whether its expression was protected by the U.S. Constitution</span>, the European Convention on Human Rights, or other national and international laws or treaties prohibiting censorship. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">There would be no transparency</span> and <span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">no right of appeal</span>."</blockquote>
Still unsure????<br><br>Sivasubramanian M<br><br><br><br><br><br>On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br>><br>><br>> On Saturday 19 February 2011 08:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
><br>> In general I see most countries in their role as handmaidens of business and<br>> other powerful elites with a patina of public choice when it is not<br>> inconvenient to the elites. <br>><br>> If your problem is that governments are mostly handmaidens of big business<br>
> (and other elite) then the only way out is to keep seeking improvements in<br>> governments, by trying to make them more and more democratic (surely, some<br>> government forms are more democratic than others) as may be happening in the<br>
> Arab world at present. Grearter involvement of civil society and community<br>> based organizations is one of the important ways of improving democracy.<br>><br>> In any case, the problem of business/ elite domination can hardly be solved<br>
> by going toward governance forms where big business is even more<br>> legitimately and formally a part of governance structures. And that is what<br>> multistakeholderism in IG is largely turning out to be.<br>
><br>> I see big businesses as conglomerates of people wanting to be rich <br>><br>> No, 'big business' are people already very rich, and having resources and<br>> means to manipulate everything and everyone for seeking ever greater power,<br>
> unless there is some political check on them. More and more, 'big business'<br>> is not even people, it is just fast moving blind capital, much more so in a<br>> network society. There is no way to correct/ improve the wrongful acts or<br>
> inclinations of big business other than through proper political checks.<br>><br>> Therefore, the solution to both, the wrong kind of governments and the wrong<br>> kind of business practices, is more democratic governance, not a return to<br>
> feudal systems where existing power (then of rank, and now of money) itself<br>> secures seats in the political system.<br>><br>><br>> and being motivated by profit more than principle, though often they hold a<br>
> principle (one i do not hold) that increase in profit is an increase in<br>> good. There are exceptions and variations in both generalities, since for<br>> the most part generalities are always partially false while being partially<br>
> true. Yes, I know that is a generality. In terms of their roles, I see them<br>> as equal stakeholders <br>><br>> My problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) begins when it is raised to this<br>> level. I can never see governments and big business are 'equal stakeholder'.<br>
> That for me is the death of democracy. i can accept MSism as a subservient<br>> part of democracy (which is the way the term was always used till I heard<br>> new formulations in the global IG discourse), but not as overriding<br>
> democracy.<br>><br>> parminder<br>><br>> among others each following their perspectives of what it means to achieve<br>> the good, even when i think their good is not so good. I see neither as<br>> representing the full will or interests of the people but only as<br>
> representatives of some part of some people's will or interests at some<br>> point in time. So I chose neither, but will work with either or both. And<br>> of course I know that it is a political choice.<br>
> a.____________________________________________________________ You received<br>> this message as a subscriber on the list: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> To<br>> be removed from the list, visit: <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
> For all other list information and functions, see: <br>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a> To edit your profile and to find<br>> the IGC's charter, see: <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a> Translate this email:<br>
> <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a> <br>><br>> -- <br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
><br>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>><br>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>><br>><br>
><br><br>