<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Monday 04 June 2012 10:21 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#333333;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.95pt;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#333333;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#333333;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:#333333;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:#333333;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:#333333;}
span.moz-txt-citetags
{mso-style-name:moz-txt-citetags;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;"><br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[Milton
L Mueller] Well, yes. You slap everyone in the face with a call to arms
that implies we are all idiots, I reply in kind. Now that we’ve got
each other’s attention, maybe we can have a rational dialogue. </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
A very weak excuse, Milton, but I'll pass it, as long as we are,
hopefully, on the rational dialogue path. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your submission says, there should be a US led
international agreement on ICANN status and role. I dont understand by
what does 'US led' mean. Pl explain.
<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[Milton
L Mueller] OK. US now controls the root and ICANN via the IANA
contract. If we are to move beyond that, the US has to take the
initiative; i.e., the US has to say, “we are willing and ready to
consider a new model.” Remember, those were comments in a U.S.
proceeding, urging the US to take that leadership.
</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have no problem with your statement as comments in a US proceeding,
and thus at that i time I did not critique it. But now, in response to
my email, you indicated the same documents and its recs as the possible
way to go in the 'international' (or transnational) discussion that we
started to have on this list, and thus the nature of my responses to
it. Now, if US led just means, US needs to agree 'we are ready to
consider a new model' , yes, that is obvious. Although, it is important
to note that civil society starts proposing models and build moral and
political pressure much before governments show their readiness to act,
and I can quote innumerable instances of this..... We dont wait to
first see the clear expression of readiness before we make our concrete
proposals and build moral/ political pressure. Also, I was wondering if
what you call as a US led international agreement will be the kind of
political fiction like AoC, where US signs something with a private
party and tries to sell it as an international thing, or it will be the
real thing, as real agreements between affected parties are, with
international legal basis and force. With your above clarification, I
now think it is the latter kind that you mean, but you may clarify. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I can only understand international agreements
under international systems, like the UN.
<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[Milton
L Mueller] And, even on this list, we can see how poorly it works when
the UN or a UN agency like the ITU tries to take the initiative. It
becomes a “takeover” proposal and it plays into the hands of US-based
nationalists. And it seems surprisingly easy to get many others to jump
on that bandwagon – see, e.g., Avri’s recent comments on the ITU. Ergo,
“US-led” is required.
</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
OK, now I think you dont have in your mind what I would see as 'real'
international agreements . What exactly is it that you are suggesting.
Pl be clear. What exactly is the US-led thing you propose. As to how UN
thing does or does not work, you present a very one sided picture. The
world in general is not so anti UN as a very limited view of a narrow
set of very vocal players in the IG space may suggest. I can show you
many campaigns from across the world, very popular and well supported
ones, that keep calling for a greater UN role in areas like trade,
climate change, IP, health, human rights etc. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I see 'oversight' as largely meaning as backing
and ensuring adherence to the relevant legal framework (arrived through
the international treaty spoken of above) and maintaining
accountability. I<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[Milton
L Mueller] I think Bill Drake answered this claim very effectively.
That is not what “oversight” means in historical context or to most of
the people using it. To most govts, oversight means imposing or
injecting their “public policy” concerns onto Internet governance
institutions, collectively or individually. So we are back to the
“public policy” problem.
</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I still think WGIG saw oversight, in itself, in a relatively narrow
manner, even if connected to broader global pubic policy (GPP) issues.
We also know that US gov/ US media uses the term oversight in its
narrow meaning. Now, we cant keep on insisting that this term has to be
accepted to mean as some the actors we may not agree with take it to
mean. These are only <i>some</i> actors.... As for 'injecting public
policy concerns onto IG institutions', you do agree later in your email
that 'FoE and anti-trust' are public policy concerns and they, you
insist, <i>must</i> be injected onto IG institutions. Milton, the
paradox is clear. I agree with you that the processes and procedures of
developing public policy and means of, to use your words, injecting
them onto IG institutions, cannot be ad hoc, and should be very very
clear, process and relevant law bound. However, you cant really be
serious in proposing that what you see as public policy is good and
anything else is bad. In essence, this is what you are saying . Lets
be rational :). <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Now
we all know, or should know, that most govts still believe they should
be setting public policy for the internet.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Huh. So you think that governments shouldn't be setting public policy
for the Internet! In that case, I must alert and warn you that there is
someone masquerading as you, Milton Mueller, very active in the civil
society advisory committee of OECD's CCICP which is one body most
active in enabling some, most powerful, governments in 'setting public
policy for the Internet'. You must intervene immediately and stop him.
and the concerned governments, from doing this most diabolical work. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
(It’s in the Tunis Agenda) From years of experience, including
especially form watching the GAC and an IGF workshop on that topic, I
have come to understand what it means.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Milton, we are slipping here into straight-forward
anti-governmentalism, as anti-democraticism. With years of experience
with the Indian government (and I am sure yours would be same for the
UG gov) I have come to understand the pettinesses of politicians, their
proclivity to corruption etc etc..... however neither have I stopped
engaging, very actively, with the Indian democratic governance system,
nor have I the least doubt that if I were to be a part of the writing a
new Indian constitution, it would in many/most of its essential
features would be similar to what it is today. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
It means, “we want to alter any ICANN decision to go along with
whatever concerns we as national governments have, whatever political
winds are blowing us at the moment and whatever lobbyist made the
greatest impression on us.” It does NOT mean “ensuring adherence to a
fixed legal framework.” Ensuring adherence to a legal framework is more
like what courts do, not the politicians and ministers/govt bureaucrats
who would staff an “oversight agency.” </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Courts do it on the basis of laws made by politicians/ ministers/ gov
bureaucrats. As I have been discussing, it is possible to make a CIR
oversight body with the sole role of ensuring adherence to a legal
framework, and not allowing it to make ad hoc interferences at all. An
institutional design that can ensure this objective is possible and
lets work towards it with faith in global democracy and global
institutions. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In any case, in your 2009 proposal you seem to
be quite confused between your hatred of 'public policy' from above and
at the same time putting in clear terms that ICANN should be subject to
FoE regulation, anti-trust law etc (through the international
agreement). This is subjecting ICANN to top down public policy, isnt it.<span
style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[Milton
L Mueller] Yes and no. Yes, I agree that codifying FoE and antitrust is
in effect a policy. No, because the “policy” embedded in FoE and
antitrust rules is stable, well-defined and fixed, not subjected to new
formulation and change based on passing political vicissitudes.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There are many other policy objectives that have long term stable
political consensus around then in modern political thought and
practice. You just have a narrow ideological position here, which I
cant share. But lets at least agree that it is just one ideological
position, and your above propositions do not stem from any neutral
rational logic. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
In other words, we don’t want a committee of governments that reviews
every ICANN decision and says “how does this conform to or contribute
to my current policy objectives?” Instead, we want a dispute-driven
(i.e., bottom up), court-like review process that says, “someone has
claimed that this particular action of ICANN violates freedom of
expression rights. Is this claim correct or not?”</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, but again, here is the Milton's version of appropriate public
policy, and not such that is derived by a due, to the extent possible,
democratic process..... However, As oft stated now, I do agree that the
oversight body should have such a narrow 'legality and policy adherence
assessing' role as you put it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">And
if you want to ask me why I believe it is legitimate to codify FoE and
antitrust as the relevant policies, it is because I believe those are
the correct policies – ones that will keep the internet and the people
who use it thriving.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I understand that you believe these to be the 'only' relevant policies.
But arent you a bit of bulldozing things here. I believe that some
other policies are as basic - as, for instance, enshrined in many UN
human rights instruments. So you think those are not relevant and
correct policies for the Internet? Just to breach your narrow,
arbitrary, construction, well, let me just name one - privacy......<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
I imagine it would be hard to get Putin or the Iranian government to
agree on those, which is why I am _not_ in principle committed to a
pure intergovernmental process.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Do you know with what dread the rest of the world reads the
pronouncement of US's tea party notables.... this is one reason that I
cant be persuaded by your entreaties that we all just submit to the US
law. It is easy to denounce a system by pointing to the views of what
may look like its worst actors, it can be done for any system. You know
very well that one Russia and one Iran cannot make UN policy, can
they?? Therefore your above line of 'reasoning' doesnt hold. Do you
think the non US world is readier to be subject to a US led process
then you are for a pure intergov UN process. Note however, that my and
many other proposals on the table on oversight and broader GPP are
rather multistakeholder. And I said that we must discuss actual
elements of any MS proposals - for instance, do you see, say, a
Microsoft rep play the same role as the Brazilain gov rep, for all kind
of policy and oversight matters?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
I think the more-liberal Internet can and should create its own
institutional framework and bypass the repressive and authoritarian
regimes if and when it can.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
And, by the same token, also bypass the unilateral regime of the US
with one of the the world's worst record of not playing along with
global rules and standard, and with a rabid IP stance and global design
that, if implemented, would distort the global economic structure
forever. Why does these points miss your censure, and you not see the
need for bypassing this particular regime, which the rest of the world
finds so oppressive. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then you seek " an appropriate body of national
law under which ICANN should operate", whereby you mean an body of US
law. No we cant agree here US law is made and can be changed by US
legislature, and that doesnt work for the rest of the world. The
appropriate body has to be of international law. <span
style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[Milton
L Mueller] it would be fine for me, </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
lets build on this agreement......<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">I
used to believe the same thing, but then people who understand how
international law really works convinced me that it doesn’t really
afford individuals much protection. </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
US law affords even much less protection to me, even if I were to
disregard my principled opposition to its global application. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Show
me some cases, e.g., where the international legal system really upheld
an individual’s free expression rights in a timely and effective manner
and I might change my views.
</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We see international legal system increasingly in operation even in
criminal matter, like war crimes (a different matter that US doesnt
accept this legal system). Traditionally, UN has mostly given policy
frameworks that have informed national legal systems, and I know many
instances, for instance in case of human right, women's rights, that
these UN policy frameworks have had very far reaching impacts. I havent
studied legal systems that would have had to provide direct and
immediate redress - in matters like marine routes and the involved
international jurisdiction, global trade disputes, IP disputes etc....
but I understand that they do work. In case of the Internet, the
pressing global nature of the problems is a new thing, and as far as we
are satisfied with policy development frameworks, implementation vis a
vis to redress etc is an issue of contextual institutional design, and
that is why, in the present case, we should discuss how the
international CIR oversight body be consituted etc. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
You correspondingly want any non US person or entity to use California
law to seek redress, if required, from ICANN. Again doesnt work for me.
<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[Milton
L Mueller] only with respect to membership and certain procedural
rights. I agree that this aspect of the proposal is flawed. There could
be better proposals, but I haven’t seen one. </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, it is not only in these matters that you mention that your proposed
system is flawed. It is undemocratic, subject to US policy and law
making processes, in which I have less faith than you perhaps have in
UN processes. Milton, I know you have a strong native political
instinct and strong political views. Answer this honestly ' if you were
not a US citizen, would you have accepted this arrangement'. I am sure
you would not have. So, pl be rational here :).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I must mention that it is strange that you, and the US, would want
people and other entities of the rest of the world to resort to US
national law to seek remedies vis a vis management of a global resource
at a time when US is going around promoting FTAs that seek to subvert
relevant domestic laws of the countries that it does FTA with in favour
of international arbitration. Why being so stingy about sticking to
national law and redress systems in this case. Why cant we have an
international redress system.<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[Milton
L Mueller] If you are talking about ICANN, I think most of the redress
would be internal to ICANN’s processes, and thus would be fully
international.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
What policy/ legal basis is this redress based on. I remember a NCUC
statement that ICANN should never take a political/ policy view of
things, and limited by its mandate, only take technical/ financial
view. Do I remember wrong. So, on what basis would the redress be
provided if it involves a policy/ legal issue, even if FoE and
anti-trust based. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
E.g., the policy making bodies are governed by ICANN bylaws; the
Independent Review Process was an arbitration that was not conducted
under California Corp. law but under ICANN’s own defined procedures. I
am just talking about falling back to Cal. law for some basic forms of
accountability regarding procedure and membership. </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We keep coming back to the same point. US law is not acceptable.
Milton, you reject UN systems because you suspect that a few
authoritarian states will make the wrong kind of policies. You want us
to remain assured that US gov will never make wrong kind of policies.
Do you think this works for us, non US citizens. You seem to favour the
US system because of your preference for long term stable policy/ legal
systems. However, if we were to approach it rationally, I think the US
policy/ law making system is much more volatile that UN based one. Dont
you think so. With the kind of laws that we have seen recently passed
in the US, or on being on the brink of being passed, do you think it
gives the world confidence in the US policy/ legal system. On the other
hand, so laborious and consensus oriented are UN processes, with US
and its allies having such a position of enviable strength in them ( a
fact we seem to very easily ignored) that nothing other than such
policy positions that have long term relatively stable political
consensus in modern, but evolving, political though and practice, can
get past these processes.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">The
FTA argument is a red herring, has nothing to do with me or my position
or what we are talking about here.
</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, it isnt. The international arbitration processes that are being
insisted upon in FTAs provide an example of increasing use of
international redress mechanisms, an issue you again raised above. It
is a different matter that I do not agree with the business-directed
processes that actually get employed in case of FTAs. No reason however
we cant have public interest oreinted interntional redress processes
based on sound international law. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Your
turn.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>