[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Roland Perry]

In message <76f819dd0910081044jb3eced8lb2fcc02520430e6b at mail.gmail.com>, 
at 13:44:03 on Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> writes
>On 10/7/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> Currently (and for a long time now) it's a rule that cctlds are composed
>> of two-letter codes reminiscent of ISO 3166; for example Switzerland =
>> .ch ; but there are also 3-letter ISO codes. Within the new gTLD process
>> there are debates currently taking place about whether 3-letter ISO
>> country codes should also be reserved to the appropriate country).
>>
>> The decision might be "yes they are" or
>>                        "no they aren't" or
>>                        "yes, but there can be exceptions".
>>
>> It's an interesting challenge to get Internet users in general to form
>> an opinion about such a thing. If there was a public vote, what do you
>> think the outcome would be? Might it help the people decide, if someone
>> took the trouble to explain to them what the implications of each
>> decision might be?
>
>There are two aspects to your question:
>
>(1) There is the technical mystification question, meaning that
>average people don't immediately understand this computer language

I'm not sure what "computer language" is involved in asking whether 
Wales or Cameroons is 'more entitled' to win a .cym gTLD. Although we do 
have to assume that people voting in such circumstances understand what 
a gTLD - voters knowing even the barest context of what they are voting 
about.

>(c) The inability of the average person to determine if their
>interests or rights are affected

Are these the voters you desire?

>> It seems a little harsh to propose firing the entire board, or even the
>> whole of ICANN, if the result is not what one section of the community
>> wants ("throwing the toys out of the pram" is an expression that might
>> be appropriate in those circumstances).
>
>"One section of the community" is not democratically legitimate to
>have its way.

But that's my point, if there's a vote about Wales versus the Cameroons, 
surely only people with an interest in one or the other will vote.

And now you've made a u-turn saying they are not legitimate, because 
each is only a section of the community.

>> I'd like to hear your views on how accountability should be built into
>> the ICANN system, to allow for oversight of the kinds of decisions I
>> mention above, so that it encapsulates the "public interest" you seek.
>> And please explain in detail how it simultaneously reflects the public
>> interest of Wales, the Cameroons, and
>> everywhere-thats-not-Wales-or-Cameroons.
>
>Until a global governance system of elections exists, the US
>Government has no business ridding itself of its responsibility.

Did I mention the US government? No. I was proposing a situation you 
seemed to aspire to where *everyone* could vote.

Would you care to have another attempt to answer my question?
-- 
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