[governance] Disfranchisement in the ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Paul Lehto]

Think of the many millions of  people around the world who have, quite
literally, sacrificed and died to obtain the right to vote.  Were they
fools?  I ask because prior to having the right to vote, those people
could lobby, attempt to persuade, be "affirmed" by their rulers
greatly or not at all, but everything hinged on what the rulers
decided and there was nothing ultimately forcing the rulers to listen.

This situation is the same with charities purporting to act in the
public interest as it was in the bad old days before democracy.   With
charities, as with tyrants old and new, and also with ICANN of today,
we have no right to vote, unless of course we are allowed to pay for a
vote by being a member of that charity, and the charity provides for
such members, but can always vote to revoke membership individually or
collectively.  In any event, the membership fee is a poll tax,
outlawed in most or all countries because it disfranchises the average
person of modest means.

If one is distracted by the horse race of which policies are being
"affirmed" and which not, you will miss the fundamental and crucial
fact that we've just been disfranchised.  (People in other countries,
some of them, may feel they're not too concerned upon seeing the US
people lose whatever power they had, but now there's no way for either
the US people or the US government to give the globe a real vote,
unless the DOC/ICANN deal is found to be void and unwound.)

We can't get from the DOC/ICANN affirmations to true global
representation, in other words.  It's a totally corporate world now,
subject to whatever bones the corporate world wants to throw in its
grace and mercy, because nobody has any rights.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 10/3/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message
> <17957550.1254516531501.JavaMail.root at elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net
>  >, at 15:48:51 on Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams
> <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes
>>Roland and all,
>>
>>  I believe Paul already covered the ground to which
>>you are quering, see below: "only democratically elected
>>politicians can do that, and only if they are behaving
>>correctly as well."  "behaving correctly and well" being
>>the specific language to which your query relates.
>
> Even by "behaving well" you cannot act in the public interest when the
> public are split 50:50 regarding what their interests are.
>
> If the "public interest" according to one set of politicians is to go to
> war over oil, and according to a different set is to avoid going to war
> over oil; how is that resolved (for the supporters of the losing side)
> after an election?
>
>>  Certainly in the US as in Canada, and the UK, elected
>>representitives are significantly unpopular as has been
>>widely reported and polls have shown time an time again.
>>Citizens are partly responsible for taking the time to
>>keep their elected representatives accountable by
>>communicating with them their concerns frequently, directly
>>as possible, and pointedly to their areas of concern.  Occaisonally
>>perhaps reminding them that your vote for them in the next
>>election may be in the ballance accordingly.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>
>>>I've never seen quite such a close linkage being made between public
>>>interest and elected politicians. After many elections around half the
>>>electorate won't find the politicians acting in their interest. Is there
>>>some benchmark for how much of the public has to have its interests
>>>served by the particular flavour of elected politicians, in the context
>>>of the remarks here?
>
> --
> 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