<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 Sunday 26 August 2012 10:48 AM,
David Conrad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
snip
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I was specifically asking for a reference to where any
"ICANN apologist claim[s] so" so I can understand their
rationale. Your statement is rather bald, so presumably you
can back it up. I'm asking for a reference. Can you provide
one?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
David, I have been through long discussions on this list about the
problems with US political control over the ICANN, and the other
side, expectedly, refutes or minimises such control (otherwise
discussions would not be so long and inconclusive). 'Subject to US
laws and executive power' and 'political control' are the same
thing. I dont want to dig up all emails and get into a long
discussion on you said this, what i meant was this and so on........
<br>
<br>
However, indicatively I can mention that when the US treasury
department's OFAC sanctions on other countries were discussed by me
as potentially problematic vis a vis ICANN's global activities, the
counter argument ranged from - these sanctions cannot be applied to
ICANN's work (there is no de jure application) to US is never going
to do so (there is no de facto application). Similarly, when problem
with 10 out of 13 root servers being in the US was discussed, the
counter arguments started with - US gov <i>cannot </i>exercise
authority over them and then went towards of course they will never
do such a thing.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>snip
<div><br>
</div>
If you assume that the "wishes of the US state" are codified
in corporate law, I suppose so, but this seems to be a bit of
a reach to me.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why? Doest US state make the corporate law?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> For example, my impression the USG wasn't particularly
excited about the creation of .XXX yet ICANN seems to have
gone ahead and allowed for its creation, no?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
How many time can this one example to used to show the purity of the
US state... Everyone knows that the stakes in the .xxx case were
just too low for the US to do such a thing with the obvious bad
press expected.... But the next time the threshold vis a vis high
stakes may be crossed.... We cant wait for that moment and then rue
the arrangement. This .xxx instance is like the British empire
telling its colony again and again about that one instance when they
<i>could </i>have acted in some way that apparently was more in
their narrow interest but did not out of large heartedness.... What
does it prove... Should the colonised stop seeking their democratic
rights becuase of that !? I am deliberately taking an extreme
sounding example because I see that the argument of democracy seems
not making much impression in most of our discussions. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Constrained by US law, yes. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is not acceptable to us, I mean those who dont participate in
making US laws. Simple, isnt it. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>Whether that is "relatively narrow" is a matter for
debate. As for abiding by the constraints of executive
authority, ICANN, at least in theory, abides by policies
created by a bottom-up open process, not by the dictates
from the USG executive branch. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
In theory, the hierarchy between the two above kinds of control over
the ICANN is clear. US laws and general US authority will prevail
whether they have exercised it in any strong manner till now or not.
And this is not acceptable. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div> Do you have any examples in which ICANN has violated
those bottom-up processes in order to meet demands of the
USG?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
US has been restrained till now. But the rest of world is not
willing to live on its mercy and goodwill, their being enough
instances in other areas that this is a dangerous thing to do,<br>
<br>
BTW, why dont I get the answer to the main question which started
this thread, and is in its subject line. <b>What happens if the US
court, having accepted it as a maintainable case, declares .xxx
registry agreement to be in contravention of US laws</b>? <b>Does
the ICANN system with its chimera of global legitimacy simply
unravels that moment? How do you see such a scenario?</b> Should
we not simple not discuss it and not prepare for the probable
eventuality. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
snip</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I figure when you are talking about mucking about with a
working albeit imperfect global infrastructure upon which
people, nations, and economies are increasingly dependent, you
need a bit more than "but the current system is undemocratic!".
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
All my political and democratic sensibilities make me feel that your
sentence above is self contradictory. You say that Internet has
become too important an issue to subject to the democratic criterion
!? Or at least that, it has become too important for us to risk
talking about democracy vis a vis its governance.<br>
<br>
Precisely, as you say, because it has become so important that it
has to be governed democratically. Dont know why democracy is
becoming such a cheap commodity now a days, and that in civil
society discussions.<br>
<br>
In fact for a such an important global phenomenon, the democracy
logic is so strong that rather then keeping on asking me to show you
how the alternative more democratic system will be better, it is you
who should tell me why it is clearly so bad in your view that we
have to sacrifice the considerations of democracy.<br>
<br>
parminder.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F1E46135-B500-49C7-927B-893B89E074C1@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<div> But maybe that's just me.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>-drc</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>