[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Paul Lehto]

Roland, I'm asking you to admit that ICANN is not constituted as an
organization practicing any form of democracy?  Do you agree or
disagree?  If you decline to answer that question on any grounds, you
lack enough interest in the subject of democracy or the lack thereof
to make me specifying what particular style of democratic
decision-making I would personally prefer, and as I stated before,
that issue just distracts from the more pressing issue of the lack of
any democracy at ICANN at all.

So, do you agree that ICANN is not constituted as an organization
practicing any form of democracy?

And to Avri, you may have guesses, or should have by now, that I have
a "bias" in favor of democracy - one required I'd say by the Univ.
Decl. of Human Rights. Any listserv that discusses governance is a
listserv that discusses ICANN governance, since ICANN has a global
reach.  WE ARE ALREADY EMPOWERED you could say, without any listserv
to discuss governance of our common life as global citizens.  This
listserv on governance makes ICANN governance especially topical.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 10/16/09, Roland Perry
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message
> <76f819dd0910151202y2a0ac3bbna59f0435a6a21558 at mail.gmail.com>, at
> 12:02:43 on Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> writes
>>Roland, you dropped out of the debate about democracy and ICANN,
>
> I had said everything I wanted to.
>
>>Is this your hypothetical question about Cameroon and such?
>
> Yes. And while it's hypothetical today, I'm 99% sure that such a
> decision will need to be made in the foreseeable future. Two groups of
> people are on a collision course!
>
> [I have no special interest in either the Cameroons, or Wales, but it's
> an elegant example to highlight the difficulties than can arise in a
> congested name-space]
>
>>  If so, please understand that even if you proved your apparent "case"
>>that there are difficulties of implementation in your (straw man)
>>version of democracy, it does not follow whatsoever that any old thing,
>>most especially an un-democratic any old thing, can take the  place of
>>some version of democracy.
>
> Which is why I asked what precise form of democracy *you* recommend to
> resolve the 'collision' I described.
>
>>It would be more enlightening for you to answer the question:
>>
>>Do you believe any subset of the people, whether "experts" or owners,
>>have the right to define and/or control or regulate the common life of
>>people on the Internet?
>
> I'm trying to discover what subset of the people *you* would recommend
> made decisions to resolve 'collisions' like the one I described.
>
> Or if it's "all of the people", how would you organise a ballot on this
> 'collision', that would avoid the drawbacks I mentioned in my original
> 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
>


-- 
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