[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Fri Oct 2 16:02:07 EDT 2009
Thomas and all,
I believe that Eric would be a better choice as to
your query Thomas as he has far more experiance in
Calif. law in this area.
Eric, can you perhaps give us all a quick and brief
evaluation?
-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com>
>Sent: Oct 2, 2009 2:36 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments
>
>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
Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Phone: 214-244-4827
____________________________________________________________
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