<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 Monday 13 May 2013 07:41 PM, Milton
L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder you have completely missed the point. In a rather disturbing way.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
It is surprising to what elegantly logical length people can go to shirk
responsibility.... It seems to be written all over the report that
'closed generic' TLDs are bad for public interest, but it is amusing how
the Independent Objector (IO) wriggles out of the responsibility of
having to do anything about them.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">The IO said that the specific, limited criteria on which he is allowed to object do not allow him to object to a TLD simply because it is a closed generic.
He is correct. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[parminder] Pl see my email. I said, either IO is wrong (he applied
creteria inappropriately) or ICANN is wrong to have laid
inappropriate and insufficient creteria...... <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
What is disturbing about your response is that you apparently want the IO to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide what is in the "public interest"</pre>
</blockquote>
[parminder] I can easily relieve you of this particular
disturbance.... I am no great believer in 'experts' deciding such
major things . Such so called 'independent' objectors or arbitrators
have a very limited role, if any, in my democratic scheme of
things..... But maybe, the community criterion could have been
applied..... English speaking people constitute a community whose
collective rights are compromised by allowing, for instance. the
products of Amazon such close exclusive association with the word
'book' which is so widely used in a different meaning by this
community..... But the IO chose not to apply the criterion...... But
IMHO such 'independent experts' mostly do not give rulings that
could upset things too much - and an adverse ruling would have had
too far reaching an impact on ICANN...<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> - an undefined and almost inherently undefinable term </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[parminder] A polity's essential job is to define and determine
"public interest" in a given context...... In the same way as the
essential task of the institution of market is to determine the
appropriate 'exchange value' of anything.....No institution does
thus essential tasks perfectly... but these terms do not lose
meaning becuase of that. It is just your deep anti-governmentalism
speaking here. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- and then impose it on us, without any process or any checks and balances. And you want this because YOU have decided that closed generics are bad. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[parminder] In fact, it is you who have 'decided' that 'public
interest' being indefinable should not be spoken of, whereby I cant
understand what are we doing at all in what is supposed to be a
political space. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The distinction here is between rule of law and arbitrary rule. So you need to understand that "democratic governance" means neither rule of momentary majorities, mobs, or powerful individuals acting arbitrarily based on whatever they feel is in the public interest. It means laws and policies made through a representative and participatory process, </pre>
</blockquote>
[parminder] Yes, lets discuss what is democracy... I agree it 'means
laws and policies made through a representative and participatory
process', which are apparently aimed at 'public interest', right!
You seem to have earlier agreed that ICANN should stick to narrow
technical policy stuff, and for wider public interest/ policy issues
be guided by a framework provided from the outside. Am I right!
Most times you seemed satisfied by the US legal system providing
this larger framework, but I also noted that you recently agreed to
some kind of multilateral system setting this framework (something
you were also inclined to just after WSIS in the form of framework
convention). <br>
<br>
That brings us to a very important context - the meeting of the WG
on Enhanced Cooperation (EC) later this month. I see two sides of EC
- one is the 'larger public policies' side and other is 'CIR
oversight' part. On the side of 'CIR oversight' one of the biggest
task is, and I quote Tunis agenda "<font face="Verdana"><font
size="2"> <big>the
development of globally-applicable principles on public policy
issues
associated with the coordination and management of critical
Internet
resources". <br>
</big></font></font><br>
<font face="Verdana"><font size="2"><big><font face="Verdana"><font
size="2"><big>How do you propose these principles can and
should be developed<font size="2">?<font size="2"> </font></font><big>
<small>If we can agree on that, o</small>r <big><font
size="2"><big>even</big></font></big> <small>make
progress towards possible agreem</small><font
size="2"><font size="2"><big><big><small>ent</small><font
size="2"><small>,</small><big> we will have
made a <big><font size="2"><big>great
contribution to global IG. I request
your comments <big><font size="2"><big>on
this . </big></font></big><br>
<br>
</big></font></big></big></font></big></big></font></font></big></big></font></font></big></font></font>My
problem is that the current default
framework is the US establishment's thinking in the Internet area -
which is that markets will take care of pubic interest. Period. . I
dont agree with
this framework... But that should not matter. The real problem is
that this framework was never arrived at democratically... And since
you insist on democracy, and I fully agree, lets find out the
democratic means to arrive at these overall public policy principles
for CIR management. What do you suggest?<br>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">constrained by due process and individual rights. It is disappointing that you just want a populist dictator to impose the 'right' decision</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[parminder] On the contrary, it if you who are rooting for the
dictator - the US establishment, which is imposing its public
policy framework on the whole world ...<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 'right' being defined as whatever you want. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[parminder] Just becuase US establishment's market fundamentalist
stance for global IG suits you thinking and preferences . <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And of course, when someone exploits that arbitrary power to do something you don't like, you will scream about violation of process and how ICANN is undemocratic. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[parminder] I have several times pointed out that you, Milton, would
never have agreed to any other country having the same level of
unilateral control as US . Neither would you have countenanced even
US control if by some magic it had been pro commons and public goods
nature of the Internet .....<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But you are revealing your true colors here. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[parminder] You dont even have reveal your true colors :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is in fact a common problem with so-called "progressives," they don't have a very deep understanding of how and why one needs to constrain power, they just believe that if you give the 'right people' with the right ideas (i.e., their ideas) absolute
power then everything will be fine. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[parminder] OK, all progressives are stupid.....<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In fact, it is really surprising the extent to which people within what
is called as the ICANN community seem to agree that 'closed generic'
TLDs are not quite right but still insist that it is somehow someone
else's responsibility to do something about it... All kinds of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">No, in the public comments it is obvious that the arguments against closed generics were weak and rhetorical. The arguments for allowing the closed generic model as one of many possible models of managing a TLD were clearly more intelligently argued. The anti-closed generic arguments relied entirely on fear-based claims about monopoly power which had no basis in economic facts or theory, or anti-corporate rhetoric, or the attempts of business competitors attempting to hamstring a rival. The whole thing was pretty comical.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[parminder] And neoliberals are all very intelligent....... With
your permission, may I tap into your intelligence to know how should
we develop "<font face="Verdana"><font size="2"><big>globally-applicable
principles on public policy issues
associated with the coordination and management of critical
Internet
resources". </big></font></font><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23D3B83@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>