[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Paul Lehto]

On 10/5/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message
>
> And doesn't the recent Affirmation spell out who they think they are
> accountable to?

Think about what the word "accountable" means, and think about what it
means for someone (such as me for example) to say in speech or writing
that "I am accountable to (say) Roland Perry."  Such a statement is
meaningless overall unless Roland Perry can fire me, prosecute me,
compel me to a more detailed and full accounting, etc (all of these).
If Roland Perry can't do all of these, then I Paul Lehto act with
impunity ultimately (and now) as to any thing that I reall want to do.
>
> Governments appear to form (via the GAC) a significant element in the
> accountability. Much more than before.

The use of the word "accountability" and related concepts is, alone,
nothing more than 1984 doublespeak unless and until it matches the
reality on the ground plus the power to make it stick.  Those two
elements are absent from ICANN, which claims "INDEPENDENCE."  Think
about what independence means.  It means nobody truly controls them.
if nobody controls them, then they are not truly accountable to serve
anybody, they are nobody's "public servant."
>
>>>>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).

Perfection per se is not required, but to be accountable there has to
be a remedy equivalent to the ability of elections to "kick the bums
out" -- i.e. to fire them all.  If that can't be done, "less than
perfect" remedies, if they even exist, are unavailing and won't stop
or even greatly slow down an entity from doing whatever they want.

All persons, and entities, have the natural desire to enforce their
own ideas of what's right, quite regardless whether they are "right"
for the entire internet public or not. It would take a philosopher
king not to abuse the independence ICANN now claims, but even if one
agrees with all ICANN philosophy (something we surely should not
expect) when it is imposed in an unaccountable fashion via an
"independent" organization without real democratic accountability,
there's no INCENTIVE to act in the public interest coming from the
outside.  They do whatever they want to do, subject solely to
non-democratic pressures like retaliation, pressuring, etc., very
analogous to how sovereign nations and corporations push others
around.

Basically ICANN will just be a fight between the "big boys", fights
interspersed with pledges to "work together."  But the policy
outcomes, if they ever align with the public interest (assuming we can
truly KNOW that, as opposed to make educated guesses about it) will
only be accidents resulting from the outcomes of fights between the
big boys who have money and power to project into ICANN.  The "little
guy" public is totally excluded, except to the extent a big boy wants
to opportunistically claim the mantle of the public interest, but even
then it's merely the big boy's characterization or spin on the public
interest of the little guys, it's not anything straight from the
horse's mouth (of the little guy).
>>
>>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).

I think  you should have stopped typing when you came to "not all of
which are democratically elected" since you're stating that they claim
to represent the public interest, but of course they do not in fact do
so.

How do we know what the public interest is??  We ask the public.  We
ask them not just in a paid-for push poll or even scientific poll, but
we ask them in elections via direct democracy like referenda and
initiatives, and/or we ask the representatives the public elects or
removes from office what they advocate on behalf of their districts
they represent.

How do we know what the Internet Policy Agency thinks are its
interests?  We ask them, or find evidence of their direct statements
somewhere.  There's no substitute for linking back to the horse's
mouth or else it's just putting words in someone's mouth.

Anyone claiming to represent the public interest that can't trace
their claim of legitimacy back to the public is no more legitimate
than if I were to speak on behalf of the Internet Policy Agency
without authority, or to claim to represent ICANN.  Even if I do such
"representation" in total good faith and come fairly close to
simulating the views, there's no authority in me to do so, and I can't
claim legitimacy.

It would be, and is, a fraud on the public to claim legitimacy without
tracing that back to an express authority.  if ICANN were to claim
that any of its actions REPRESENTED the public interest, that would be
a fraud.  They can only guess at the public interest, and misleadingly
claim that in their opinion it's in the public interest, but if they
went that crucial step further of claiming LEGITIMACY and the right to
bind the public that would be a fraud, just as much as if I purport to
speak for ICANN or the Internet Policy Agency.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

-- 
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