[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Paul Lehto]

Roland,  now you're saying that I've got a burden of proof and that I
misstated something.   If you speak of getting rid of ICANN, aka
"nuking" it, that provision to which I presume you refer requires
ICANN's agreement, which renders it a nullity.  Otherwise, I've no
idea what you're talking about, because if you were able to prove that
I made a misstatement, you'd have to tell me specifically what it was.
 It wouldn't affect ICANN's self-claimed "independence", or, if it
did, then it would prove ICANN deceptive or lying.  So, if I'm lying
then ICANN is lying, and I'd happily take the fall if it means that I
can take ICANN with me.

Independence is good as applied to individuals or body politics, but
bad as applied to other entities, ALL of whom are supposed to be
public servants or claiming to be acting in the public interest.  So
acting is not true "independence" it is a form of Slavery, albeit
often thought an honorable slavery, which is why the term "public
servant" is supposed to be a term of honor, even though it has the
"servant" or slave-term at its core.

Basically there are no elections in ICANN that can terminate it or
fire its staff for corruption or incompetence in pursuing the public
interest.  Thus, that is, there is no democratic legitimacy even in
fig leaf form.  This is no problem for you, it appears, or
alternatively you claim against all evidence that it doesn't exist,
despite the clarity of the claim of "independence" in this specific
context.  Had ICANN intended to pursue the public interest, they would
not announce "independence" but rather their binding commitment (with
the bounds and keys held by others, not themselves) to be a servant of
the public interest, and not their corporate interest, which Otherwise
is not only the universal habit of corporations both profit and
nonprofit, but in fact what they are compelled by law to pursue:
either profit in the case of profit companies, or the mission in the
case of nonprofits.  That mission can't claim the mantle of public
interest without some legitimate nexus back to the public itself to
ask, from the horse's mouth, what the public wants.

If asking the persons whose rights and lives you wish to modify on the
internet is TOO MUCH TROUBLE for practical reasons, what right does
anyone have to go around squashing human beings like bugs who it is
not worth the time, effort or expense to solicit their opinions or
views on the question?  Each one should have a voice, thus universal
suffrage in democracy arises.

Yes, sometimes, when elected officials appoint someone or set up an
executive agency that appoints someone to another board of some sort,
the chain of accountability gets tenuous.  I've previously referred to
this as a slope and at some point, specifically when it is no longer
fair to say under all the circumstances that the public or the public
interest is in charge, then it becomes an illegal and unconstitutional
delegation or abdication of power.

A legislature charged with doing the job of making laws, for example,
can't just assign that lawmaking task to a private body and refuse to
oversee it or to provide standards and further disclaim its
responsibilities as charged by law or the constitution.   Yet that is
perilously close to, and appears to be exactly what, the DOC
accomplished an the Affirmations agreement.

In short, attenuated accountability such as the case of appointment
still leaves recourse like defunding the agency or firing its staff,
even if the details of the appointee somehow are impossible of
control.

To suggest that because there is some kind of attenuation of control
in the usual case in democracy, that it is ok to go to a situation of
"independence" from control, as ICANN itself now claims to have, is
truly an incredible leap.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 10/7/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message <76f819dd0910060857l766c25e5y4df848136e07598 at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 08:57:35 on Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> writes
>>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.
>
> The simplest attack is to observe that your thesis relies upon "proof by
> assertion". At least one part of your assertion has been shown to be an
> exaggeration (it would be unkind to say "false"). Currently, the ball is
> in your court to improve upon your proof.
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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