<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Parminder,<br>
<br>
Until someone explains: '(2) how an alternative system will be better (something that can never be proved by demonstration)' - we got what we got, which is a system with ~2 billion users. By some measures that's 'working.' ; )<br>
<br>
Where we go from here is the question.<br>
<br>
1 scenario is status quo, 2nd is ICANN as a free-floating international org. <br>
<br>
Several of us have been asking you to try again to come up with a viable 'Third Way' model.
<br>
<br>
You're saying we academic weenies should go next or what are we good for.<br>
<br>
I pass the buck to the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force proposed by Norbert.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF318847"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder@itforchange.net]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 23 August 2012 11:55 AM, David Conrad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Parminder,
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:03 PM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Verdana">Problem is, ICANN apologists claim so, especially when caught on the wrong foot in global discussions - like on this list - faced with legitimate criticism of how a global infrastructure can be managed as per legal
and executive authority of one country. <br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm surprised anyone would make such a claim. Could you provide a URL? I'd like to understand the rationale.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
What I said about the apologists for the current ICANN-US relationship was;<br>
<br>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana">"They first claim that ICANN is <i>de jure</i> independent, but when pushed with facts, they try to say, ok, well, at least, it is
<i>de facto</i>, independent of US laws.</font>"<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You tell me that you have never heard of any such claim. Before I try to show you when and where such claims have been made, let me, for the sake of argument, take your word and agree that no one ever makes any such claim.<br>
<br>
This would obviously means that everyone agrees that ICANN operates under US laws (which is kind of same as 'oversight') for its full range of its functions. Right!<br>
<br>
Therefore, it is agreed that ICANN can be forced to change its decisions by the US courts, legally exercised executive power etc. Also as all entities subject to any jurisdiction do,<i><b> ICANN must already be carefully factoring in US law in all its decisions,
knowing that in default its decisions can be struck down</b></i> (this kind of less-than-very-obvious control is of very great significance).<br>
<br>
I hope you agree that I am still following a logical consistent argument!<br>
<br>
Now, if all this is true; are we not justified in saying that ICANN largely confirms to the command and wishes of the US state - and through it, assuming a good degree of democracy in the US - of the the people of the US - and correspondingly not of the people
of the rest of the world. <br>
<br>
To the extent that ICANN does take global inputs for its policy development, it is within (relatively narrow) confines or constraints of the degrees of freedom allowed by US law and executive authority.
<br>
<br>
Why then it not be considered legitimate that the rest of world finds this situation not acceptable, being not democratic etc?<br>
<br>
Why do you bring in always, to any proposal for more democratic alternatives, the issue of having to show you the proof that (1) the present system is not working (not being democratic is enough reason, isnt it!) and (2) how an alternative system will be better
(something that can never be proved by demonstration). <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>-drc</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>