[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Paul Lehto]

The example of the UK, which seems to have a robust process for
"striking off" charities not truly acting in the public interest (if I
understand this correctly) is totally distinguishable from the ICANN
situation because it is elected representatives in the UK who review
or authorize the review of the charities and have the ability to
"nuke" them or remove them from any claim of legitimacy.  Without
finally judging the sufficiency of such a procedure, here we STILL
have a link to elected representatives who have the power to terminate
the status of the charity vis a vis the public interest, so that
retains a lifeline to democratic legitimacy PLUS (as is absolutely
necessary) the ability to make it stick by removing the charity. (And
I presume the robustness of the termination/review process the failure
of which would spoil everything).

Nobody has the ability to remove ICANN's board of directors or
terminate ICANN without their consent, right?  Without such a power,
all review is merely perfunctory advice that can be and will be freely
ignored whenever in conflict with any ICANN agenda.  Also, there's no
link all the way back to the global internet community.  Users don't
have a vote that can ultimately reverse or eliminate ICANN and
substitute "different guards for their future security" to quote the
US Declaration of Independence, asserting the ultimate rights of the
people.

When the ultimate power is not diffused among all the people via
democracy, that means power is concentrated in the hands of a few, and
all of history shows the danger and damage caused by that.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 10/3/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message
> <21947256.1254599995816.JavaMail.root at mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
> , at 14:59:55 on Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams
> <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>>>In the UK we have an organisation called the Charity Commissioners, who
>>>provide quite a lot of oversight.
>>Yes, but does the Charity Commissioners have any real clout or force
>>of law of any sort?  My guess is no
>
> They are currently "striking off" a number of fee-paying schools because
> those schools are not considered "charitable enough" (there is some
> debate what this exactly means, but it probably includes giving a
> certain number of sponsored places to disadvantaged families, as well as
> allowing their facilities, such as sports fields, to be used by the
> wider community outside teaching hours). If they lose the charitable
> status, there are tax implications.
>

-- 
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