[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Paul Lehto]

On 10/2/09, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Apologies for top posting, I was going to rebut many of your points
> inline, but have decided to simply point you here:
>
> http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
>
> and say that the end of the JPA supports this Internet ethos,
> especially the notion that "You have no moral right to rule us nor do
> you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear."
>
> The Internet, ideally should be governed by its users, of which,
> governments are but one among many.  The toothlessness of the
> Affirmation is a positive step towards that ideal.

Tim, ask yourself the question of what recourse or power do internet
users or anyone else have over ICANN?  It is totally irrelevant what
ICANN says, or even if it says all the right things, they've announced
themselves "independent" and are therefore beyond all control, beyond
all recourse, and beyond all accountability.

Indeed, why should ICANN listen to anybody if there's no fundamental
check and balance?   I could (purely fanciful here) set up myself as
king of this listserv and at least initially purport to be very
broadminded and tolerant and adopt ideas of others.  But at all times,
as long as the notion that i'm an independent king is accepted, I can
do anything I want to and there's nothing remotely effective anybody
can do about it, except to leave the list.  There's a huge difference
between living under a "philosopher king" who recognizes the fact that
nobody wants to be ruled but fails to publicly recognize the
contradiction involved when the "philosopher" king eliminates
elections by the public - the only legitimate source of ultimate
political authority.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>


-- 
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