[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[McTim]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> 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.

That's right, charities operating in the public interest have this
property in general.  Think Red Cross or Medicins Sans Frontieres.

>
<more snipped>
>
> 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,

Except for me, and all the other folk who prefer direct participation
in ICANN processes, rather than having a gov't represent us.  You
forget too, that in addition to the original design of ICANN being
independent, many folk around the world (and on this list) have
comlained bitterly over the last few years because of unilateral (USG)
control over bits of ICANN. They didn't like it so much.


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.

They are absolutely a disguise, a fig leaf if you will, but not for
aristocracy.  They are a political fig leaf for the US Administration
(provides a bit of cover so that Obama can't be blamed for "giving
away the Internet" in the next campaign).


> 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 think that is probably correct.

<even more snipped>
>
>
> 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).

People have been complaining of this for a decade. Independence from
the USG MoU or JPA won't change it.


  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.
>
<snip>
>
> 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.

Either you missed my last post or you have chosen to ignore it, but in
it, I expressed my preference for pure democracy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure%20democracy) in this
case, as opposed to representative democracy.

 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,

I will, see above.


> because they would self-define themselvse as undemocratic,

or more democractic, as I do.


-- 
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