[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<76f819dd0910050734o5fbc2812k789c8232b30eac3b at mail.gmail.com>, at 
10:34:02 on Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> writes
>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.

And doesn't the recent Affirmation spell out who they think they are 
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.

Governments appear to form (via the GAC) a significant element in the 
accountability. Much more than before.

>>>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.

So you don't accept the concept that a major element in the Review Team 
is governments (not all of which are democratically elected, but would 
nevertheless claim to represent their people).
-- 
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