[governance] a faux meeting of the minds

Tue Oct 6 18:37:49 EDT 2009

Paul and all,

  My comments in response interspersed below..

-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
>Sent: Oct 6, 2009 12:14 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>Subject: Re: [governance] a faux meeting of the minds
>
>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.

Agreed which is why ICANN is by some on the extreme fringe.  Could the
IGC follow suit?  Well lets hope not.
>
>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.

Here here!
>
>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.

Very much agreed and there are a number of historical refrences, one
reoccuring one is in the western hemisphere, Mexico.
>
>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.

Most of us that are adults of 30+ years of age have witnessed
many "Real" Conspiracies in the government sector.  So belitteling
such is foolhardy to the wise and informed.
>
>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.

Agreed fully here.
>
>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.

The only platform that could be used as and example is the UN and it
is historically not a good one especially in the past 20+ years of
history.  

>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

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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