<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Lee<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 25 August 2012 09:40 PM,
Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B13088C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Similarly as Pax Britannica was 'working' over most of the world in
the 19th century, and was working by many measures, as long as some
people appropriate the right to decide what these measures are....
The numbers, legacy, status quo etc are neither measures of
legitimacy or even of the greatest effectiveness. What we have, as
was with Pax Britannica, is just a hegemonic system created and
perpetuated by the use of illegitimate power. There were enough
apologists for Pax Britannica at that time - they are a legion - and
there are enoforugh Pax Americana now. Not very different at all.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, people fought against illegitimate British domination and
they will against illegitimate US domination. In this regard,
seeking proofs of what is wrong with how things are at present is,
in my view, a rather cynical if not condescending view to take. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B13088C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;"> <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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B13088C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;"> <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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, Lee, this is not true. Many aspects of such a viable
alternatives have been discussed here in good detail - like, a
OECD's CCICP like body to look at global Internet policy matters but
not CIR oversight, a kind of international CIR Oversight Board with
very clearly delimited remit, judicial review with the International
Court of Justice, a better geographic distribution of root servers
etc..... Do you really think it is wise to present a complete
monolithic model in an academic paper rather than proceed
collaboratively through building on such basic outlines, what I have
tried through this list? I dont think the academic paper route is
the best way. The right way is to get a global CS group come up with
basic elements and propose it as a starting point of disucssion
globally. (As India proposed a global discussion with CIRP as a
dialogue opener.) Of course if I see some mass building behind a set
of proposals, I can try to flesh it out in a week. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B13088C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;"> <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
face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
on behalf of parminder [<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><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><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>