[governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era ofCensorshipinDomain Names

[Guru@ITfC]

Dear Milton,

Thank you for your response. 

1. "But if they don't agree, on what basis can they impose a uniform policy
on the entire world, via ICANN? " 

I must confess surprise at such a simplistic statement. Policy formulation
is complex, inter alia, because it is a a process of negotiation amongst
different interest groups. If everybody agreed easily and initially, there
would be no need for political processes at all. Look at WTO, WIPO, Kyoto
protocol ... In every such space there is fierce contestation and
negotiation. The current Doha round of WTO is caught in strong differences,
should Governments persist to try and find a meaningful consensus or should
they abandon it? These are new global spaces and the processes of policy
making perhaps is being discovered / invented as we go along.

All stakeholders, including civil society, certainly governments, private
sector, with or without ICANN (which is all said and done, is under the
legal oversight of a single country, even as it makes decisions on global,
multilateral issues, hence being vulnerable to being considered an archaic
entity - we agree on this point) have to discuss the ways by which we will
govern these new spaces that are already critical and becoming even more
critical to our lives. 

But even before that we need to acknowledge that this is a public policy
space and different interest groups will have a legitimate presence in this
space. For some of us, it is a mantra that 'the internet community is not
only those who logon to the internt, but all those whose lives are impacted
by it' by the later definition, we cover practically whole of humanity, 90%
+,  of who are not part of these internet governance spaces as these
governance lists ... For what its worth and with all its drawbacks and
limitations, as of today, their only hope to having their interests
represented in internet governance is through their Governments (not really
through the few hundred individuals on this list, however well read,
intelligent and compassionate we may be)

2. "This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or what
are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of people like
you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly advocate for a free
internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and institute that.
Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit poassively back and
accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We must actively shape and
define them, based on our knowledge and our conscience.  That is the
business we are in here, isn't it? "

I agree with this point made above. Of course, society is not independent of
the individuals **and institutions** comprising it and we all shape such
rights together. My point was slightly different, I was stating that your
strong objection to Vittorio, asking why Governments opposition should not
be considered, was not valid. You said that the Government  opposition
should not be considered - "Not if they are proposing to restrict a
fundamental human right."

My point is that fundamental rights are themselves constituted in society
through these very Governments and are enforced (not by you, me or any other
individual) by the same Governments. The understanding and interpretation of
such 'restriction on fundamental rights' itself needs to be debated and
understood widely. Hence I don't know if we can apriori refuse Government
role based on such beliefs. 

Regards
Guru

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 8:26 PM
To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era ofCensorshipinDomain
Names


>>> guru at itforchange.net 4/4/2007 9:46 AM >>>
>So 200 or so Governments not agreeing amongst themselves does not in any
way reduce their legitimacy as stakeholders to this process.

No one said govts were not legitimate actors per se. But if they don't
agree, on what basis can they impose a uniform policy on the entire world,
via ICANN? 

>Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are they what
societies (with active participation of Governments) have accepted at 
>particular points in time.

This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or what are
the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of people like you
and me. And if I and others who agree strongly advocate for a free internet
and free expression, then "society" may accept and institute that. Let's
have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit poassively back and accept
what "society" tells us is our rights. We must actively shape and define
them, based on our knowledge and our conscience.  That is the business we
are in here, isn't it? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:11 AM
To: vb at bertola.eu
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of CensorshipinDomain
Names

>>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu> 04/03/07 7:04 PM >>>
>In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should be
disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion has 
>to be taken into account.

Not if they are proposing to restrict a fundamental human right. 

And "governments" don't have a single opinion, in case you hadn't noticed.
We have over 200 of them and their laws don't agree on this matter. This
business of lumping so-called "stakeholders" into homogeneous groups is
really getting out of hand. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance