<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Guru<br>
<br>
The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed
under this header, especially as regards principled positions. There
is adequate attention paid to reform (which is essentially about
"effectiveness") but less about principled (or dare I say it on this
list "radical") positions. International law, or governance, is both
about effectiveness AND legitimacy. Without this parallax view,
these discussions become mired in convolutions as the subject matter
(and/or goal) is not clearly articulated - i.e. terrain specificity.<br>
<br>
It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate,
even though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but
legitimacy will always be elusive, given current arrangements.
Inadequacies abound about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds,
intellectual property and also the thwarting of the will of many
poor countries to have some legitimate control over CIR. Unless one
has ideological (or pay check) blinkers this ought to be a moot
point. For many on this list, it is not, and will not in the
foreseeable future. <br>
<br>
On reform, there are many avenues to follow, often dictated by the
realm of possibility that is severely constrained given current
predilections. And more attention needs to be given to these
elements from a principled stance as Gurstein has ventured. What I
would really like to hear more about is the problem of marrying the
technical with the non-technical as there is a dialectical
relationship between the two (tech is tech, but tech is also law as
Lessig puts it). But the debate would need to move away from the
pedestrian one, "if it aint broke don't fix it" or "where is your
alternative" as if these cannot be created, as if ICANN et al have
not reinvented themselves to make themselves seem more legitimate
dolling out dosh and following the Iraq & Afghanistan
pacification strategy post invasion. <br>
<br>
There are improvements that need to be made, but I am not sure the
imagination has been sufficiently decolonised (in general) to even
pursue some of the inquiries you pose and perhaps some more reality
is needed on these matters... <br>
<br>
<br>
On 2012/05/25 04:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net" type="cite">
<br>
Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its
accountability to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it
benefit disproportionately?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>