[governance] POST JPA

Eric Dierker cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net
Thu Oct 1 22:53:06 EDT 2009 

It should not be the role of International Internet Governance to hand over control to individuals.  Human Rights are not a turnkey operation.  
 
As netizens we have a responsibility to work at it.  Better to let those who really fight for it, have it. Until we have universal internet voting rights we must be careful who we crown.

--- On Thu, 10/1/09, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] POST JPA
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" <vanda at uol.com.br>
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2009, 7:58 PM


One has to read the corporate spin with ICANN, as with all
corporations, with a lens to eliminate the happy-talk corporate PR
aspects and the weasel words.  The key sentences at icann.org are the
following:

"[ICANN and Commerce's agreement] declares ICANN is **independent**
and **not controlled** by any one entity. [It's not controlled by any
combination, either, though it speaks of various ones]  It commits
ICANN to reviews performed BY THE COMMUNITY – a further recognition
that the multi-stakeholder model is robust enough to review itself.
[We can all review ICANN, three times a day if we wish. It doesn't
mean anything, however, when push comes to shove, which is the
DECISIVE issue, it's not just an "issue" it's a decisive "controlling"
issue, as it were.]

"The Affirmation is of **long standing** and is not limited to the
three years for which previous agreements operated. [Corporate
Independence Forever and Uber Alles!]

The Government **Advisory** Committee's role is reaffirmed. And the
GAC is a key participant in selecting the membership of the review
teams. ["advisory" is a critical word, and it means zero control of
ICANN]

At bottom, ICANN is released to "partner" with whoever they choose,
probably just the large vested financial interests.  They may choose
in fact to create the world's most diverse advisory body, but it's all
an orwellian illusion if the public, whether in the USA or around the
globe, has no enforceable control.  to add insult to injury,
privatizing ICANN completely also means no claims of constitutional
rights can be made against ICANN in court -- at least that's the
position of all private corporations accepting privatization
initiatives.    The details are irrelevant, no matter how good they
are.  If in fact they come up with great policy somehow it will be the
actions of philosopher kings and/or queens, not the actions of an
accountable democratic body committed to public input.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor


On 10/1/09, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:
>  Dear list
>
>
>
>  The ICANN's independence with the end of JPA can be seen at icann.org.  We
> have translated Rod's speech to Portuguese to make it easy for all
> Portuguese speaking colleagues.
>
>  Best to all
>
>
>
> Vanda Scartezini
>
> POLO Consultores Associados
>
> &  IT Trend
>
> Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
>
> 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
>
> Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
>
> Mob + 5511 8181.1464
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Willie Currie [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:50 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not?
>
>
>
> Ok, so the main shift is the establishment of four review processes
>
> which will assess ICANN's performance in four areas in three year
>
> cycles. The review teams will be jointly established by the ICANN Chair
>
> or CEO and the Chair of the GAC. These reviews will replace the role of
>
> the US DoC in reviewing ICANN's performance. One can see an increased
>
> role for the GAC in oversight of ICANN here, but it is a 'soft' form of
>
> oversight - the 'recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the
>
> Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within
>
> six months of receipt of the recommendations'. In other words, there is
>
> no enforcement mechanism for the recommendations - the ICANN Board is
>
> not obliged to implement the recommendations, i.e. the reviews will have
>
> the soft force of persuasion and moral or political pressure but not the
>
> instruments of 'hard' oversight. This is reinforced in the Affirmation
>
> by the clear statement that 'ICANN is a private organization and nothing
>
> in this Affirmation should be construed as control by any one entity.'
>
> So  the Board  remains the key body of power within ICANN  and the least
>
> accountable, as there is no democratic mechanism for the bottom-up ICANN
>
> community to dismiss the Board.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless this is a step forward, with respect to diluting unilateral
>
> US oversight of ICANN. It remains to be seen to what extent civil
>
> society is represented on any of the review teams and whether the
>
> recommendations of the reviews are accepted and implemented by the ICANN
>
> Board. The EU has come out in support of the continuation of the IGF 'as
>
> it is the only place where all internet related topics can be addressed
>
> by a wide range of stakeholders from all over the world, including
>
> Parliamentarians.' It will be interesting to see what role the IGF may
>
> be able to play as a space where the reviews can be deliberated on in a
>
> multi-stakeholder fashion and boost the transparency of the review
>
> process and perhaps its soft power.
>
>
>
> Willie
>
>
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
>
>>
>
>> On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> Hi Mc tim,
>
>>>
>
>>> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing
>
>>> changed ?
>
>>>
>
>>> B.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> And something did change.
>
>>
>
>> Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer
>
>> about.
>
>> It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't
>
>> chair for right of participation.
>
>>
>
>> Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant
>
>> the change will turn out to be for ICANN processes.
>
>>
>
>> a.
>
>>
>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>
>> 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
>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091001/4593b9b7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list