[governance] Your support for a petition

[Carlos A. Afonso]

I am sure I am unsure :) The DoC proposal attributes to the GAC a power
of representation it does not have -- a government outside of the GAC
and completely beyond the DoC's wishes can do what you say on any
ground. What, if the Doc proposal is approved (by consensus, I imagine?)
this will not be considered because they are not part of the GAC
"tribe"? I would like to see this happening in real life...  Further,
there was no need of a resolution of this kind for the USG to veto .xxx
in 2005... and it will continue exercise this independently of the
approval of this proposal, unless the Board finally moves itself away
from its usual cowardice regarding mighty USA.

What if a specific government proposes that it has the right to
*request* veto on a new TLD without litigation if this is done during
the ICANN application processing period? This might be a strong argument
in defence of "less developed" countries' cultural resources, for
example, who might not have the dough to confront a ligitation process.

I might vote yes on a rewritten petition, which would stress the
importance of not modifying GAC's advisory role, which would stress the
relative irrelevance of its representation as a multilateral
constituency vis a vis the other multitlateral representative structures
and the sovereignty of any specific government, would recognize that any
specific government could *request* a veto and would stress the role of
the Board in keeping the GAC in line with its originally agreed role.
Would I be followed by millions? :)

--c.a.

On 02/20/2011 06:40 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
> 
> "governments could object simply because the name is controversial, or because
> one or two governments don’t like the applicant, or because an authoritarian
> government wants to suppress the kind of content that might be published
> under a specific top level domain name.
> 
> A veto could take place regardless of whether a proposed domain name
> violated an international law, and regardless of whether its expression was
> protected by the U.S. Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights,
> or other national and international laws or treaties prohibiting censorship.
> There would be no transparency and no right of appeal."
> 
> Still unsure????
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 19 February 2011 08:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> In general I see most countries in their role as handmaidens of business
> and
>> other powerful elites with a patina of public choice when it is not
>> inconvenient to the elites.
>>
>> If your problem is that governments are mostly handmaidens of big business
>> (and other elite) then the only way out is to keep seeking improvements in
>> governments, by trying to make them more and more democratic (surely, some
>> government forms are more democratic than others) as may be happening in
> the
>> Arab world at present. Grearter involvement of civil society and community
>> based organizations is one of the important ways of improving democracy.
>>
>> In any case, the problem of business/ elite domination can hardly be
> solved
>> by going toward governance forms where big business is even more
>> legitimately and formally a part of governance structures. And that is
> what
>> multistakeholderism in IG is largely turning out to be.
>>
>>  I see big businesses as conglomerates of people wanting to be rich
>>
>> No, 'big business' are people already very rich, and having resources and
>> means to manipulate everything and everyone for seeking ever greater
> power,
>> unless there is some political check on them. More and more, 'big
> business'
>> is not even people, it is just fast moving blind capital, much more so in
> a
>> network society. There is no way to correct/ improve the wrongful acts or
>> inclinations of big business other than through proper political checks.
>>
>> Therefore, the solution to both, the wrong kind of governments and the
> wrong
>> kind of business practices, is more democratic governance, not a return to
>> feudal systems where existing power (then of rank, and now of money)
> itself
>> secures seats in the political system.
>>
>>
>> and being motivated by profit more than principle, though often they hold
> a
>> principle (one i do not hold) that increase in profit is an increase in
>> good.  There are exceptions and variations in both generalities, since for
>> the most part generalities are always partially false while being
> partially
>> true. Yes, I know that is a generality. In terms of their roles, I see
> them
>> as equal stakeholders
>>
>> My problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) begins when it is raised to
> this
>> level. I can never see governments and big business are 'equal
> stakeholder'.
>> That  for me is the death of democracy. i can accept MSism as a
> subservient
>> part of democracy (which is the way the term was always used till I heard
>> new formulations in the global IG discourse), but not as overriding
>> democracy.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>  among others each following their perspectives of what it means to
> achieve
>> the good, even when i think their good is not so good.  I see neither as
>> representing the full will or interests of the people but only as
>> representatives of some part of some people's will or interests at some
>> point in time. So I  chose neither, but will work with either or both.
>  And
>> of course I know that it is a political choice.
>> a.____________________________________________________________ You
> received
>> this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.orgTo
>> 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
>>
>> --
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
> 
____________________________________________________________
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