[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

Wed Oct 7 16:25:52 EDT 2009

Paul and all,

  Execellently articulated and spot on IMO.  Seems that the
USG in DOC/NTIA has decided via some communications from
the White House and/or the relevant committees in both houses
of congress have decided that ICANN cannot be held accountable
effectively.  I think such a notion is/was nonsense and gives
US Citizens a hint of significant proportion that public servants
too often are not interested in serving the public's interests
unless those interests are in line with whatever politicaly 
correct or assumed consideration(s) from withing those USG
organs independantly.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
>Sent: Oct 7, 2009 11:52 AM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
>Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments
>
>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

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