[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[McTim]

Paul,

Please find my answers inline:

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/09, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

>
> Tim, ask yourself the question of what recourse or power do internet
> users or anyone else have over ICANN?

That easy.  To help shape Internet policy making under the ICANN
umbrella, one must get involved in ICANN in one way or another.

http://public.icann.org/

The average Internet user isn't really interested I'm afraid, but
pleny of ppl are.

As for "recourse or power", I think you need to understand how the
Internet is coordinated.  It always has been a multiplayer system,
coordinated by thousands of folks working in many different
organisational processes, such as ISOC/IETF, RSOs, RIRs, IAB, IESG,
W3C, etc, etc using freely accessible policy development processes.

It's not about "power" or coercive "control", it works via consensus,
collaboration and coordination.

ICANN plays a very small part in all this, yet it gets the most heat
and light.  ICANN is not a king, it's just one player among many.  The
idea of ICANN was always to be independent, it just took a decade.


 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.
>

not at all, they have just successfully terminated the JPA.  One
(beyond all accountability) doesn't necessarily follow from another
(independence from the USG).

If you are looking for a US gov't "stick", there is still the IANA
contract (recently renewed).

> Indeed, why should ICANN listen to anybody if there's no fundamental
> check and balance?

ah, but there is/are.  ICANN doesn't operate in a vacuum. There is a
web of interrelated organisations all working together and keeping an
eye on one another (in a collegial, cooperative way).

When one does something unpopular however, it is kept in check (see
Sitefinder for a recent example).

 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,

but of course, it wouldn't be (accepted), would it, so that's just silly.


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.

Coordinating Internet technical resources is an administrative
process.  I find that eliminating a layer of misdirection
(politicians) and allowing people to become directly involved in these
processes is more purely democratic.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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