[governance] Cameroon and Wales collision in TLD space ?????

[Paul Lehto]

To clarify, I've previously stated that all of us are "already
empowered" to have and express our views re ICANN -- under the Univ.
Decl. of Human Rights and the law of democracy at national and
international levels.  That being said, my quote below implicitly
refers to ICANN's view, given its self-claimed "independence" that
they would quite obviously consider any issues they handle to
ultimately be nobody else's business except their own self-chosen
experts or their own ideas -- they are, after all, "independent" of
everyone, right?

Roland Perry's response is that I "seem to suppose there are none of
those experts on this list".

I "suppose" no such thing.  In fact I previously posted that I
suspected that some on this list may fancy themselves (or hope to be)
among the elite computre cadre that will advise on such decisions.

I'll add now that this "advising" ICANN may be both sufficiently
interesting at a technical level as well as flattering or exciting on
a personal level that one may (in effect) say "to hell with democracy,
I'll help craft a technical solution and ICANN will just IMPOSE it on
the internet without all the inefficiency of public discussion and
wrangling present with democratic processes."

And indeed, Roland, you step right up to the plate and appear to taunt
me, for the good cause of which entirely escapes me and I'll bet some
other people on the list, to come up with a detailed democratic
solution to a technical ICANN issue, clearly implying your belief that
democracy is unworkable, difficult or not worth it.

As the Englishman Thomas Paine wrote (he's also considered the
"architect of the American Revolution") regarding democratic suffrage
or voting rights (and as countless millions of women, minorities,
non-landowning males, and other non-elites have proven by their
valiant and restless agitation for the right to vote):

"[A person] without the right to vote for representatives is RENDERED
A SLAVE because he is subject to the will of another" [the definition
of a slave in the general sense, and applicable to political relations
as well as "ownership" of human beings].

Given that those who have no say in governance are subject to the will
of others (read: elites) and thereby become slaves -- just as the
residents in dictatorships have no say in the making of the law and
thus are not free regardless of how open-minded a philosopher the
dictator may be -- THE FOLLOWING ARE IRRELEVANT:

1. It's IRRELEVANT that democracy (universal suffrage) is
"inefficient" -- even if true.
2. It's IRRELEVANT that there are implementation challenges with
democracy - even if true.
3. It's IRRELEVANT that that admission to suffrage of world citizens
arguably doesn't improve the quality of decision-making because elite
"experts" think they know better -- EVEN IF IT'S TRUE and can somehow
be determined that they really do objectively know better (the track
record of aristocrats is poor in this regard)
4. It's IRRELEVANT what the cost is, BECAUSE

BECAUSE the bottom line is that the ALTERNATIVE of rendering us all
subject purely to the will of ICANN, without representation and the
right to vote, renders us all subject to ICANN's will - we're all
subjects of or slaves of ICANN as defined above.

And if Roland Perry is a technical advisor to ICANN and is so lucky as
to have his advice accepted as ICANN policy, one thing is clear to me:

Roland Perry is NOT listening to me -- a humble former lawyer and
writer about democracy, and he's not acting like he's concerned at all
about democracy's nonexistence at ICANN, he's just focused on his
perception that democracy's unworkable.

And therein lies the rub.  And therein lies the twin justifications
for all non-democratic forms of governance: At bottom they all assert
variations on two basic themes (1) democracy's unworkable/inefficient,
and (2) the people are too dumb or ill-informed to be allowed any real
say in how their common life  on the internet is structured.

Elitists or aristocrats of various stripes classically argue that
people need "guidance"  instead, and folks like ICANN mean to give
their best guidance, good and hard, as indeed any good idea argues for
vigorous total implementation.   Note that "guidance" is clearly a one
way street, providing for output on the people but not any meaningful
input FROM the people in the event they highly object to some
implemented policy -- the very point at which people need a real right
of action the most.

So ICANN policy, "could be good" like Plato's philosopher king "could"
develop good policy in theory - but no such king has existed, after
all, just what justice-minded philosopher king begins by making
political slaves of all of his fellow people by denying them a vote?

Or, ICANN policy could be bad, in which case the problem of "no
recourse" comes straight to the fore at the most inopportune possible
time, from the standpoint of the public interest.

I'm not aware of any  political theorist, thinker or philosopher who
holds "power does not corrupt." They hold the opposite to that.  And
ICANN has power, does it not?  Thus, if the nonexistence of
philosopher kings in reality is insufficiently persuasive, perhaps the
reality of the corrupting nature of power will help.   HERE'S ONE
REASON WHY it's inevitably corrupting:  The very act of listening to
each and every person wishing to give input or instructions to their
public servants is an incremental increase in burden, such that
there's over time an extremely strong disincentive to actually listen
to the public voices of the public interest one claims to act in
furtherance of, and instead officials simply impose their own views
they subjectively think are correct quite regardless of what everyone
else thinks (except their close cadre of suitable advisors) and tune
everyone else out as "noise."

In addition to the various other definitions of this phrase, in the
context of political representation (I worked in the past for a state
senator and in congressional campaigns), hearing what one wishes to
hear is to hear "signal" and what one doesn't wish to hear or
understand as relevant is "noise."  The corrupting influence of power
as well as this "signal" vs "noise" dynamic are just human nature in
very large part.

This is why anyone who truly is to represent the public interest must
be under a DUTY to do so.  Not under merely a voluntary "outreach"
project - that's worse than useless because a good thing (outreach)
parades around to disguise a very unsavory underlying reality.

So we're all subject to ICANN's independent will.  Political slaves,
under not only Thomas Paine's definition but liberal democratic theory
pretty much in general. Thus the tides of history toward universal
enfranchisement aren't a gift to the enfranchised, it's the avoidance
of creating de facto aristocracy or autocracy as well as avoiding the
oppression of the disenfranchised (who, it can't be missed, most
clearly WERE oppressed as chattel slaves, or as wife-servants under
glorified names until getting the vote started to change the tide).

Don't you, Roland, really think in your heart of hearts that being
undemocratic is just WRONG???   If not, let's start with me as an
example: Now that my government's purported to give away ICANN for
free for its "independence" I've got no say, direct or indirect
through the Commerce Dept, in its governance.

QUESTION:  Roland, why do you support me not having even the paltry
equal status of being one out of over a 100 million voters with an
attenuated say, but a say nonetheless via the USG DOC, over ICANN?
What's wrong with me Roland?  And if you personally find nothing
wrong, what do you think OTHERS find wrong with me such that I should
not have even an indirect vote via elected representatives making
appointments?

And, if you WOULD give me a vote if it were up to you, WHY NOT choose
everyone else within the affected jurisdiction(s) as well, like the
whole globe if it's a worldwide issue, or less if not?  Why be
arbitrary and choose me to have a vote but not others?   Or, why
should anyone at all have an enforceable say in ICANN policy if anyone
on this list, for example, does not?  Were certain people born "booted
and spurred and ready to ride others by the grace of God?"  If not,
who authorized them, and who authorized that authorizer to act in the
name of the public interest?

ICANN policy, however cloaked in technical language and perhaps
occasionally cloaked in apparent public interest, is nothing  less
than FORCIBLE structuring of the common life of the internet without
any DUTY that is meaningful and with any real teeth in it, to act in
the public interest.  And without those "teeth" one has no recourse,
say or power not only at all times but especially **at the very worst
possible time** -- when ICANN really blows it or really intentionally
does something for (say) corporate interests rather than the public
interest, and hurts the public in the process.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 10/17/09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message
> <76f819dd0910160853t7d929187g37e2791feb2d85e4 at mail.gmail.com>, at
> 11:53:31 on Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> writes
>>If there's not a democratic system of governance at ICANN, any such
>>"collision" of domain names or any other issue for that matter is
>>purely a matter for insider "experts" at ICANN and not the proper
>>"domain" of anyone on this list.
>
> You seem to suppose there are none of those experts on this list.
>
> But in the case of ISO 3166 assignments, the experts are not "inside"
> ICANN but outside. The proposition in RFC1591 cannot be clearer:
>
>        The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is
>        not a country.
>
>        The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code
>        top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a
>        procedure for determining which entities should be and should not
>        be on that list.
> --
> 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