[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Paul Lehto]

On 10/3/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>The bottom line is the shift, of tectonic importance here, where the
>>admittedly too narrow and attenuated accountability of the Commerce
>>Department/ICANN to the US public purports to be eliminated in favor
>>of what ICANN calls "independence."  In turn, "independence" means
>>there's ZERO RECOURSE.
>
> That'll be a big disappointment to a lot of people, if true,

The above text to the right of the double carats >> is (ultimately)
undeniabily true in ICANN's opinion of itself, because it describes
itself now as "independent." An accountable employee or public servant
is by no means "independent", they are, in an important sense
"enslaved" to the public interest and subject to being removed from
power by the voters either directly or indirectly.  An organization
that is "independent" specifically of primary governmental oversight
from the USDOC is not in a subordinate position to anyone, it's
"independent."  As a free or independent organization, it doesn't have
to account to anyone except its own board and whatever it chooses to
be accountable to.

So long as one likes or can live with the policies made, one can
delude themselves or talk themselves into thinking this state of
affairs is acceptable.  But as soon as one is left out in the cold, it
will come home to them really fast that ICANN is unaccountable and
that there's zero recourse, remedy or solution to the problem except
for forms of begging (taking to the airwaves, harnessing public
opinion for what it's worth, as one does with kings or aristocrats)
and forms of retaliation (governments seeking to influence an
independent ICANN might threaten their interests in other unrelated
areas in order to promote a favorable policy in a certain area).  None
of this is remotely similar to the civilizing influences of
democratically based controls and accountability.
>
>>the situation is now much worse because there's no
>>accountability to anyone anywhere
>
> What, not even the Review Teams? (The accountability might not be
> perfect, few things are, but they exist).

Democracy is defined as government by all the people, aristocracy is
defined as government by less than all the people.  I don't see anyone
arguing that democratic control REMAINS, I only see rationalization of
what's left, such as charities and review teams.  But all the "Review
Teams" in the world without real democratic control are worse than
unavailing, they are a charade, or a disguise for aristocracy.
Perhaps some on this list, I really don't know, either are or hope to
be part of the aristocracy of Review Teams and thereby "do good" by
recommending good policies.  I can understand that love for good
policy, but one is forced to do it by living out a preference for
aristocracy rather than democracy, and one is implicitly defining
everyone not on the review team as someone who does not deserve a
voice, in addition to not having one, unless of course the review
team's primary recommendation was to restore democratic control of
ICANN.
>
>> and no mechanism to manufacture accountability to the global
>>community. (unless this giveaway and abdication of authority is
>>challenged)
>
> So you don't think the proposed scheme delivers any of that?

Like I said before, without CONTROL, and specifically DEMOCRATIC
control, all the review teams and all the details of ultimately or
expressly advisory bodies are rendered irrelevant without the crucial
element of democratic control.  Of course, even with tyrant kings,
there are those court advisors and certain elites who have the ear of
the king, usually because they are sycophants to power in sufficient
degree.  These persons or organizations might review the king, advise
the king, whisper in the kings ear, etc., but at the end of the day
the king does whatever he wishes.

The ICANN "proposed scheme" can thus have bells and whistles and
claimed Protections out to, literally, infinity, but not a single one
of them has the power to make anything stick unless the king, I mean
ICANN, wants them to stick.

Imagine having elections where the one time when the elections
wouldn't add up the votes properly was when corrupt incumbents were in
charge, and thus the population wishes to "kick the bums out" as they
say.  In such a case the right to vote fails to work at precisely the
time when it is most needed!

Similarly, with ICANN, perhaps it will be 2 days, 2 months or 2 years
before they make a decision that the majority (the ultimate decider of
the "public interest" under all political principles of democracy)
thinks is quite wrong, or even corrupted by business interests not
acting in the public interest (because they are institutionally
incapable of anything but their own business profit motives).   At
exactly the worst time, then, when ICANN has made a terrible decision,
there's going to be nothing you and I can do about it, even if 50% or
more of the public is totally on our side.

After a suitable period of elections with the information-exchange it
allows, the public, as a whole, best knows "if the shoe fits," that
is, if an alleged public policy is indeed the policy of the public.
Those who think they know better, and wish to benefit the public by
their genius, are either aristocrats or tyrants - many of who m at
least start with better motives to enforce their own ideas of policies
on everyone else for their own good...

The public interest is ultimately defined by, duh, the public.  By
definition, any wise men, "review teams" or committees of experts who
believe, sincerely or not, that they can do better are, by definition,
aristocrats or authoritarians in their direct actions.

I'd just like aristocrats and authoritarians (and whoever else is
opposed to democracy) to come out so that we can have a discussion
about the fundamental issue here of how "public interest" is derived,
be it democratically or otherwise.  I've been a part of elites, like
lawyers, and I don't like them (nor do most people).  Of course,
coming out into a discussion amongst equals would be both democratic
in nature, as well as exposing of the anti-democratic nature of the
ICANN structure as well as any who would expressly defend it.

I expect that no one will directly attack my argument for democracy,
because they would self-define themselvse as undemocratic, but I
welcome it.  Democracy -- accept no substitutes.
-- 
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