[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

Fri Oct 2 15:36:41 EDT 2009

Since the adoption of the New gTLD Policy in June 2008, I've been thinking 
through the process for establishing equitable representation for cities 
within the ICANN structure. Now, with the Affirmation, I'm wondering what 
forces within ICANN will advance the role of cities when such a sharing will 
result in a dilution of control for those in whose hands it currently 
resides.

I see two remaining threads of outside influence: the State of California 
and section 11 of the Affirmation. Perhaps Karl or another familiar with the 
Golden State's law/politics could speak on the role of California; if some 
changed relationship might be in the offing based on the recent 
transformation. Might the Attorney General (former and possibly future 
Governor Jerry Brown) take a fresh look?

As to section 11, when it states, "The agreement is intended to be 
long-standing, but may be amended at any time by mutual consent of the 
parties. Any party may terminate this Affirmation of Commitments by 
providing 120 days written notice to the other party." does this mean this 
if egregious activities are noted by the DOC, and notice provided to ICANN, 
that in 120 days we would see a transition to another oversight structure? 
If so, that sounds like a tacit veto for the DOC. And perhaps someone might 
be so brave as to speculate on a circumstance under which ICANN would 
terminate?

Tom Lowenhaupt

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Lehto" <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "Roland Perry" 
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

> The bottom line is that every remnant of DEMOCRATIC accountability has
> been stripped from ICANN.  Whatever remains appears to be merely
> advisory, which has no power ultimately at all, but even if something
> is created that DOES have power, it's most definitely NOT democratic.
> THis is the coup de grace for privatization of the internet, which
> means that the public interest can NEVER truly exist because the
> private players on the internet are all larger corporations, whose
> charters and legal structure require them to pursue one single thing
> with a single-minded intensity -- profit for their shareholders (or,
> in the case of nonprofits, whatever educational or charitable goal is
> defined there).  Although nonprofits are definitely much more
> public-interest minded, at the end of the day no nonprofit can
> legitimately claim to represent the PUBLIC INTEREST -- only
> democratically elected politicians can do that, and only if they are
> behaving correctly as well.   Thus, no matter who (if anybody)
> controls ICANN outside ICANN's board of directors, it isn't
> democratic, we can be certain of that.
>
> Thus, it's very disturbing to me that there's a giveaway of a huge
> asset (for public interest protection purposes) like ICANN and they
> didn't even SELL it or auction it off to get money for taxpayers NOR
> did they transfer it to a democratically accountable global
> organization with real power over ICANN (the best choice).
>
> What I'm saying is that whoever effectively controls ICANN, it
> certainly isn't the people of the United States of America, nor is it
> the people of several nations, and it is definitely not the people of
> the entire globe.  Thus, without a way for people to vote (ultimately,
> even if a long process) to elect politicians with a mandate to
> restructure or differently regulate ICANN, there is no public control
> of ICANN, and thus ICANN has achieved independence from democracy or
> democratic control itself.  And, ICANN has done so specifically
> without creating any real substitute for the control of the US
> government.
>
> For what it's worth, "Advisory Boards" no matter how seriously they
> are or seem to be taken, are a joke on the level of actual control.
> They're free labor to the organization that ultimately can do whatever
> it wants to and the advisors have no cause to complain, since they are
> merely advisors, after all.   Thus, ICANN freely announces its
> "independence" which is another way of announcing its separation from
> democratic control of all kinds.  NOTHING THAT IS A PUBLIC SERVANT OF
> THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS "INDEPENDENT" OR SEPARATE.
>
> Thus, the announcement is a game of sleight of hand, in which they are
> purporting to create global accountability, but most definitely and
> clearly are not, because there's no democracy left in it.  The only
> powers that be outside democracy are corporations.  Some or many will
> cheer that the US government is taking its hands off, but at least the
> people in the US could push for public interest policies and make them
> stick if it became a big enough campaign issue.  But now, even that
> limited possibility is gone.   The shell of independence for ICANN has
> been moved, but underneath that shell is no real accountability for
> ICANN to the global community.
>
> On 10/1/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> In message
>> <76f819dd0910011242u2d26722eg4cac8f606ece0282 at mail.gmail.com>, at
>> 12:42:19 on Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> writes
>>>It doesn't matter how diverse the "stakeholders" are in their country
>>>of origin, race, creed, sex, or what have you, if the stakeholders and
>>>the public as a whole do not have a CONTROL mechanism.  The
>>>elimination of all remaining control mechanisms (elections, as an
>>>indirect control) is precisely what's being accomplished with the
>>>agreement between the US Commerce Department and ICANN to make them
>>>essentially independent, subject only to an advisory board.
>>
>> I'm not sure what this has to do with the GAC members.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the ultimate control be given over to ALAC,
>> rather than GAC?
>>
>> Just curious, I don't have a "position" of my own regarding this.
>>
>>>With politicians, every communication to them is utterly toothless if
>>>it idoes not carry (as it always does) an implied threat that one will
>>>vote the poltician out of office if they don't do the right thing.
>>>With the new ICANN structure, even this vestigial remedy (attenuated
>>>as it was by the insulation of the commerce department from the
>>>electorate) is eliminated in every meaningful sense.
>>>
>>>I'd be the first to welcome true and real global governance regarding
>>>the internet.  The fact that they've put in the semblance of "global"
>>>but zero "governance" means that the shift is an abdication of all
>>>public, democratic control, even if that control was improperly
>>>limited to a single country, the USA.  Even more importantly, there's
>>>no mechanism with which to fight to CREATE true control on the global
>>>level in favor of the public interest.
>>>
>>>Thus, we can't fight, lobby or progress from the new posture of an
>>>independent ICANN to a situation of true global control/governance
>>>without (1) a nearly unprecedented act (in the history of Power) to
>>>voluntarily create genuine and real accountability on a global scale,
>>>OR (2) a revolution or revolt.  And just how does one have a
>>>revolution or revolt against a corporation at all, much less a
>>>corporation that has a monopoly on what it does, and which we all need
>>>to exist or have a "domain" on the internet?
>>
>> So you don't think you can work inside the existing (and as-modified)
>> ICANN framework to achieve any of this? [Same disclaimer as above].
>>
>>>Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>>>
>>>On 10/1/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>>> In message <1254397157.3941.611.camel at anriette-laptop>, at 13:39:17 on
>>>> Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> writes
>>>>>One question I have about the GAC, does it not become very important to
>>>>>have input from different stakeholders at country level in the
>>>>>identification/nomination of GAC members
>>>>
>>>> As a matter of simple fact, the GAC members are usually the most 
>>>> obvious
>>>> career employee of the ministry charged with overseeing "International
>>>> Telecoms issues", and are therefore likely to also turn up at ITU
>>>> meetings, EU telecoms/Internet meetings, IGF consultations, UN-ECOSOC
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Plus there are a few who might alternatively be their country's
>>>> "Internet Czar".
>>>> --
>>>> Roland Perry
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> 

____________________________________________________________
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