[governance] a faux meeting of the minds

[Paul Lehto]

any group taking a public position (and accountable at least to its
funders) is going to think long and hard before taking a position that
directly undermines democracy.  Therefore, many if not all groups will
share in common this concern about accountability being non-existent
in the new ICANN "independence" arrangement, EVEN IF they aren't
really totally behind democracy.  The alternative is to be perceieved
as undemocratic which is unsavory for all but the extreme fringe.

That being said, the difficulties and hazards for the success of any
given group's point of view are multiplied tremendously by putting
things out to an indirect (via representatives) or direct vote of the
people.  Therefore, those who are "players" in power tend not to want
to roll the dice with democracy, it forces them to lose relative
control and influence.  This is a natural conflict of interest for all
insiders, solved only by a ritual (and real) deference to democratic
processes.

Where that deference is lacking, then the approach is almost
invariably to simply ignore as best they can the defects in democratic
process, because it's ultimately not a good terrain to fight on (the
tides of history are decisively in favor of democracy).  Therefore, if
one is (in practice if not in heart) against democracy in order to
preserve an inside position (whether or not stated as being in the
public interest) then one is forced to do an end-round democracy,
undermine it covertly and not up front -- because a frontal attack on
democracy is just too dangerous.

Interestingly, and I don't claim its existence in this context, the
basic form of an attack on democracy (given that it must be indirect
and/or secret and not direct) would be something that, if identified
and criticized, could likely be called "conspiracy theory" as a way of
belittling it.  But if I am correct that democracy is too dangerous to
attack directly. there exist only two main ways for it to be damaged:

(1) purely unintentionally because people aren't realizing what they
are doing, and
(2) by what amounts to, or can be characterized by others as, a
conspiracy theory.

What this means is that committed defenders of democracy need to
realize that the primary mode of attack will be from within, and in
the nature of what is often called (to silence discussion, all too
often) a conspiracy theory.  The almost overwhelming power "conspiracy
theorist" denunciations have to silence debate combined with the fact
that they are usually made by totally unconnected non-conspirators who
just perceive they can score a good debate point in an email or oped
means that (drum roll please)....

Conspiracies, REAL ONES, when and if they exist, have nearly a free
hand to succeed.  They will get enormous assistance from innocent
people denouncing conspiracy theories.  Yet what all of this ignores
is that when something is really popular and can't be attacked
directly, the only way to attack it is in the general nature of what
people call a conspiracy theory in the vernacular sense (which doesn't
require the element of illegality, and thus is just an agreement among
two or more people to operate in favor of a common result  -- the most
common thing in politics, yet still denouncable as a "conspiracy".)

A conspiracy, after all, is nothing more than an agreement among two
or more people to accomplish an illegal result.  There are millions of
agreements a day, literally, and there are lots and lots of laws.  But
save your typing, I'm not alleging a conspiracy of anything secret
here with ICANN.  I'm just explaining that the decision to circumvent
democracy is not going to be the lead in their press releases, and
that it's natural to attack democracy indirectly since it's the only
way to be successful.

That being said, the ICANN affirmations themselves are public material
and more than enough to draw the conclusion that what remained of
democratic control is being eliminated via the affirmations.   We lost
Too-Narrow (US only) democratic control and gained absolutely nothing
in terms of global democratic control, therefore it's a big loss for
democracy, and there's no platform from which global democratic
control can be *readily* built.
Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

PS I think for the first or second time I've reached a daily limit so
I'll see ya'll tomorrow if there are any replies.
On 10/5/09, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Or maybe, as uncomfortable as it might seem, there are some views that
> are held in common between the two groups.
>
> a.
>
> On 5 Oct 2009, at 03:47, William Drake wrote:
>
>> Interesting how major trademark holders use (coopt?) the same sort
>> of language as CS re: the AoC.  I guess capture is in the eye of the
>> beholder...
>>
>> http://www.cadna.org/en/newsroom/press-releases/iccan-affirmation-of-commitments-falls-short
>>
>> “The Affirmation of Commitments document missed the mark by failing
>> to create accountability for ICANN,” said Josh Bourne, President of
>> CADNA. “The points addressed and the intent expressed in the new
>> agreement touch on the many issues that are important for a stable
>> and transparent Internet—however, without proper oversight and
>> accountability, ICANN is not beholden to follow through on any of
>> the promises made in the AOC.”...Furthermore, while the AOC calls
>> for periodic internal reviews, only an independent review can
>> provide an honest and objective assessment of the operations of an
>> organization....“ICANN is still broken and as a regulator that has
>> been captured from within, it cannot properly self-correct,” said
>> Bourne. “Independent, outside pressure and accountability are needed
>> to reform ICANN.”
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>  Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
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