<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 23 August 2012 11:55 AM,
David Conrad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E5F46CEF-BB5B-4229-8CD8-DAE7325CF043@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Parminder,
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:03 PM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><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
cite="mid:E5F46CEF-BB5B-4229-8CD8-DAE7325CF043@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>-drc</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>