<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 Friday 07 December 2012 09:39 PM,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
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.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:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1618878037;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-866899206 67698713 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">So, you object to the use of the term 'US
exceptionalism'! You are on record asserting repeatedly
that you think ICANN should continue to be subject to US
laws, at least in the areas of regulation of non-profits,
competition and FoE...... presumable more...... (in any case
an entity is either subject to a jurisdiction, or it is not;
there are no choices available for an entity to be subject
to some laws and not others).
<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] One last
attempt to salvage an informed, honest discussion of
this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">I am on record, and have been
for years, for favoring the DE-nationalization of
ICANN. Which means that I view the US govt the same
way I view any other govt, I want them out. This is
not “US exceptionalism” but its opposite. </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Right! Lets inspect your arguments below which you cite in defence
of what you claim is your consistent view on de/inter-nationalising
ICANN. Going through the two arguments you present, one can quickly
see that they lead to no proposal for any action or change. They run
in a circle around themselves and end where they start from -
keeping the essentials of the status quo intact, with ICANN staying
as it is - subject to US oversight and jurisdiction. Correct me if I
am wrong and if you indeed have a roadmap to take ICANN out of US
oversight and jurisdiction (but, pleeaassee, dont tell me to "go,
read my book"!)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">On the issue of ICANN’s
corporate home, the position is a bit more complex,
but if one is interested in real discussion rather
than posturing, it is not that hard to figure out and
to debate the merits:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">a.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">If ICANN is incorporated as a
private entity, it will have to be in one
jurisdiction. As jurisdictions go, there is nothing
intrinsically worse about the State of California than
other jurisdictions. It may be better than many
others. Yes, this means that US jurisdiction has more
influence in some types of disputes than others. But
special status for the home jurisdiction would be true
regardless of where it is incorporated. So if
Parminder or others would like to make a case for
another state or nation-state jurisdiction, let them
do so. So far, no one has.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We all know of organisations that have immunities from the hosting
country jurisdiction, dont we! Dont know why you ignore that fact.
Asking me and others to make the case for ICANN being subject to
other country jurisdiction instead of that of the US, you know well,
is entering into an argument that will lead nowhere. And so the
ICANN stays where it is!<br>
<br>
I dont think ICANN should be subject to any one country's
jurisdiction - however good it may be, and whether I have a voting
right in that jurisdiction space or not.... That would be
undemocratic... I have also not the least doubt that if ICANN was
indeed located, say in Delhi, subject to Indian jurisdiction,
neither you nor other Americans would have accepted it. I repeat, I
have no doubt whatsoever you would have been vocally protesting
against it. Can you honestly say you would have accepted it! (I have
asked you this before.) Here, I am merely asking you to be
consistent, and not promote US exceptionalism, and then present
defensive arguments that you know are patently facile.<br>
<br>
As for whether indeed US jurisdiction is the best among all
countries for HQ-ing ICANN - it can in fact be shown that it is
among the worst... You of course know that the US has one of the
worst records of adherence to international law. In addition, there
are other issues that can make the jurisdiction of many other
countries much better for ICANN - like better public domain / IP
regimes, software not being granted patents (which can check
outrages like Verisign patenting essential DNS related technologies)
.... one can give so many examples. But would any number of them
really convince you or other Americans to take ICANN to the
jurisdiction of another country. You know it wont; then why are you
posing a false argument. <br>
<br>
(BTW, almost all non USians by instinct seem to agree that Geneva
would be better jurisdiction than any place in US for ICANN. But
does the strength of and support for such an argument make any
difference!)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">b.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">If ICANN is not incorporated
as a private nonprofit, but as an international org
under international law, there are real concerns that
ought to give any internet freedom advocate pause:</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This one is rather more serious argument to take forward...<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">a.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">International orgs can be
_less_ accountable than a private organization.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Accountable to whom?? This is the key question. To US, US citizens,
US courts??..... No, we want accountability to the people of the
world.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"> Parminder dismisses this
concern by waving his hand and saying that he wants
the international treaty to make sure it is
accountable. My response: good luck with that.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, if an international treaty is such an impractical idea, why
have you been advocating it - right from when we worked together on
the 'framework convention for the Internet' idea to your cited 2009
paper which again calls for an international treaty. What happened
between 2009 and now that has made you so completely reverse your
position. It is you who owe others an explanation rather than pooh
poohing those who just have been consistent about the treaty
proposal....<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"> Give me one real-world
example of when that has worked, and you might get
some traction in this debate.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You give me one example of where actual multistakeholderism has
worked in substantial global policy area (no, ICANN does not do
substantial policy of the kind I am speaking of here). However, this
does not stop us anyone asking what they think is right. You
yourselves have written often that Internet indeed presents an
entirely new context - so, why base your defensive argument on
asking me for instances 'where it has working before'. Whereas, the
fact is also that international treaties have really worked in
countless areas - they have regulated global trade, IP regimes,
maritime system, nuclear disarmament..... many more.<br>
<br>
BTW, would you tell me an instance of where trans-nationalism -
which is what you advocate now, of which many elements I support -
has worked before? Does it stop you from advocating it. One of the
weakest and worst possible argument in defence of the status quo in
a new space like IG - oft used on this list - is 'show me where it
has worked before'. And whatever you try to show can be demolished
with facts about the new context being quite different - which of
course it is.. and so it goes on. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">b.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">The current political
situation in the world suggests that the negotiation
of such a treaty would become an opportunity for
states to assert more control of the internet. This is
clear both from the behavior of ICANN’s GAC and from
the behavior of many states in the WCIT. </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The states always had the same proclivities. Do did you suddenly
discover this fact post 2009, when you last asked for an
international treaty? If anything, there are more democratic states
in the world today than in 2009 - Tunisia, Egypt...<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Supporters of international
law such as Parminder need to explain how they get a
treaty and international law that bypasses these
problems. So far, they haven’t.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
OK I will. Meanwhile, if you tell me how you thought till 2009 that
a treaty could be achieved bypassing these problems, maybe I can use
some of the same arguments :) <br>
<br>
More seriously, this is the same issue as I discussed before. I have
to somehow before-hand prove something that I have no devices to do.
Any kind of governance system comes with some possibilities of
negative impact. We just can try to do our best, and not agree to
the wrong kind of things. And the struggle will be perpetual. But
using this argument to stop any movement forward is just self
serving for status quoists, as it always has been. I will give you
two illustrations. <br>
<br>
In 1940s, during India's independence struggle, the British could
well pose the question - what is the guarantee that a democratic
India, with more than 80 percent hindus, and such communal
divisiveness, would not immediately sink into extreme
communialism,and change its laws to traditional hindu practices etc
etc..... There of course was real danger of all this.... But one
could only respond by insisting that we will keep struggling for
progressive constitutional principles and their actual
implementation and so on.... A similar issue faced India when in the
1980's India went for what is perhaps the world's most comprehensive
village self governance system... There were fears of chaos, further
increase in corruption.... and partly these things did happen.... we
keep struggling to correct these distortions, but no one thinks we
should not have gone for the decentralisation exercise.<br>
<br>
I hope you have got your answer... The only way is to keep the
struggle up and try and ensure that any global treaty doesnt get
problematic things into it. BTW, wasnt it you Milton who has been
saying for so long now that nothing threatening is going to happen
at WCIT, because inter alia, many progressive countries wont agree
to bad proposals. Same for the treaty that could internationalise
ICANN, which will in fact protect and legitimise its basic model of
technical coordination and technical policy making system. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">c.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">IGP has filed formal comments
suggesting the outlines of international treaty
principles that would limit ICANN’s powers and help to
secure internet freedom, while retaining its status as
a California corp. In other words, Parminder’s charge
that we are apologists for the status quo is simply
wrong.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Very well. IT for Change supported IGP's comments at that time
(except for the part which sought a US initiated treaty, but about
that later). Indeed that submission proved that you were not
'apologists for the status quo'. But the problem is that you have
since retracted from that position (havent you) and that makes this
label stick I suppose :) <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"> However, in light of the
points made in b) above, we don’t hold out a lot of
hope in the current situation for such a treaty to be
ratified. </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Perfect instance of wanting to have the cake and eat it too! You
want to be judged non US apologists for making a treaty proposal,
but you also want the treaty proposal not to go ahead.... <br>
<br>
Global politics is complex. Things move forward because people know
they have to give something to get something. If real
internationalisation of ICANN was offered we can get so much from
all the countries on the table.... In fact, North's and civil
society's positions at ITU would also have looked much more
justified if on the parallel a real way forward on
internationalising ICANN was being offered. Sorry, Milton, you seem
just to have decided some things privately, between 2009 and now,
and now getting impatient with people who ask for justification. It
is you who much give the justification for such a radical change of
position. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Note the fate of Brazil’s IG
principles which despite widespread civil society
support cannot make it through the govt.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The below is from the article that was quoted in the initial
postings on IGC list on what was happening to Marco Civil in Brazil<br>
<br>
" Brazil’s main telecommunication companieslobbied hard against it,
arguing it was contrary to the
principles of the free market
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>" <br>
<br>
So free market argument (to prevent net neutrality) was the main one
used against Marco Civil. So, Milton, you have perhaps picked a
wrong example to make your case :) . Indeed there will be
discussions around what principles are the ones that would frame the
relevant treaty, and we need to allow that process and discussion to
take place, not anticipate it and kill it as you are proposing. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"> Until there is strong
support for the type of principles we put forth in our
proposal it would be foolish to push ICANN into an
international treaty negotiation.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
How would any such support be built and demonstrated? Things happen
when we face the moment of truth - and treaty drafting will be one
such.... We all know US would not easily agree to net neutrality
(they blocked it from OECD Internet policy principles) . Similarly,
China and due process in content regulation.... but these issues
need to put on the table first. <br>
<br>
Anyway, and this is important, I think a treaty for
internationalisation of ICANN should stick to the bare minimums and
need not necessarily go in depth into all such contentious issues.
In fact, such a basic framework for internationalising ICANN could
be a low hanging fruit (I know some people will jump at this
suggestion) which is something I think civil society should
initiate. This is because the moral justification of
internationalising ICANN is rather apparent and inherently
incontestable. Why dont we start a civil society process to develop
a politico-legal framework for internationalsing ICANN? <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level2 lfo1"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Happy to engage in any
reasonable discussion of these points. </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hope you do. look forward. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Not interested in any
tub-thumping about the US and warn others not to be
misled by caricatures and oversimplifications peddled
by people with no real ideas. <br>
</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just being yourself Milton. I am providing real ideas, and have real
positions. They just dont seem to suit you.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>