[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

Tue Oct 6 11:57:35 EDT 2009

Hey McTim, I don't mind you "attacking" my argument for democracy by
urging direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy,
because that's not an attack at all, from my perspective (I hadn't
specified which form of democracy or republic, I only insist that the
people, as the only legitimate source of power, retain or get -- if
they don't presently have it -- control over ICANN).

Moreover, a careful reading of my posts, which admittedly perhaps not
everybody has time for even though democracy deserves the time whether
or not I'm an adequate defender of it, will show that I admit that
having a global internet controlled only by the US public via the US
government leaves something major to be desired.

That being said, the problem here is that no matter what the problems
are or were with US government/DOC control on behalf of the US public,
the alleged "transfer" of power to a more global constituency is a
fake and a fraud, because no public entity empowered by any global
public or even any single country's public retains any control -- not
even in theory (unless the purported transfer is invalidated in court
or unwound).

So, I'm still waiting for my basic thesis to be attacked, namely, that
democratic control (emphasis on CONTROL, not mere "input") is the only
legitimate way to vindicate the public interest.  Every other charity
or organization can claim to advocate the public interest, but even
General Motors claims that what's good for GM is good for everyone.
Though there are surely good organizations out there that i personally
strongly believe are closer to, or even nearly identical to, the
public interest, that's merely my personal opinion. The only
legitimate way to fully claim the public interest mantle is by having
a mandate via consent of the governed from the people as a whole.  And
that's precisely what ICANN "independence" defeats -- any real
legitimacy for anyone to either represent, or be obligated to pursue,
the public interest.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 10/5/09, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>

-- 
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