[governance] Your support for a petition

[Carlos A. Afonso]

In general I agree with Parminder.

I think the document exaggerates a bit: "The GAC represents all the
world's governments, including Iran, the U.S., Russia and China." It
does not. It is a representation of a bunch of governments in a
non-binding forum aggregated to a private organization. As Louis Pouzin
reminds us, a bullet is missing in the petition:

"• The GAC veto cannot apply internationally because the GAC does not
represent any internationally agreed authority."

What needs to be preserved is the advisory nature of the GAC as such.
In any case, with our without this proposal being approved (by whom?),
"one or two" governments can, GAC or no GAC, legally or not, block TLD
applications.

And, please, an independent Russian journalist would have the dough to
go through the extremely expensive application process?

Hmmm, I think I prefer to abstain.

--c.a.

On 02/18/2011 03:36 AM, parminder wrote:
> Milton/ Norbert
> 
> Excuse my ignorance about complicated ICANN issues. I am still only
> trying to understand the issue but...
> 
> Do you think an objection that needs to be supported by *a full
> consensus in the GAC* is really 'putting GAC in charge of domain name
> policy.How easy is it to get a consensus among all governments. In fact
> pursuant to any such consensus it is at present 'legal' to militarily
> raid and takeover any country. But that really doesn't happen that
> often, right.
> 
> Moreover, how does it compare with the present practice where any
> adjudication regarding 'public interest' issues involved in domain name
> policy is done by a body of the International Chambers of Commerce.
> Interestingly, this body of ICC - the ICC International Centre of
> Expertise - on its website claims expertise in 'every conceivable
> subject relevant to business operations'. Business operations?? Public
> interest ?? Am I missing something here.
> 
> Furthermore, any vote of any country (say, the US)in the GAC on a public
> interest issue,  since its implication will also be produced within that
> country, should be able to be challenged in the national courts vis a
> vis its compliance to constitutional and subordinate law.
> 
> As you would have surmised, I am not too enamored of global political
> power being exercised by big business, and between that and legitimate
> political systems, will prefer to work with the latter, and seek reforms
> to them.
> 
> And, Milton, if a legitimate transnational political system has to be
> sought, placing big business in a central position is hardly the right
> way to go about it. It is best sought as an evolution from existing
> representative systems.
> 
> Parminder  
> 
> 
> On Friday 18 February 2011 01:13 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:
>> On 02/17/2011 12:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. 
>>>
>>> http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto 
>>>
>>> Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can!
>>>   
>> Already done.
>>
>>
>> Norbert Klein
>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> PK
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t