[governance] Your support for a petition

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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"?

Carlos, I have no idea what you are getting at here. No idea. 

>  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... 

That is a very instructive example. The proposed GAC veto would institutionalize what happened when the US government abused its special relationship to ICANN to pressure it to kill a TLD because a vocal group within its jurisdiction demanded that it do so. So do you want this to happen routinely? Do you believe that people should be silenced any time an organized interest group mounts a campaign against them? At stake here is a basic principle of human rights. Individuals have a right to expression rehardless of whether it is popular or liked by others. Under no conditions is that right conditional upon the extra-legal opinions of a bunch of government officials. 

> 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.

There is already a community objection process built into the Applicant Guidebook which meets those concerns. 
Also, it is already possible within the proposed process for GAC as a whole to register an objection and trigger an  objection process. 
The difference is that the current objection process, which the US is trying to overthrow, has a defined standard for evaluating objections.  The objection must prove that the TLD is contrary to internationally recognized principles of law. You can just object "for any reason."

Sometimes in these debates I feel like we have reverted to the 16th century and I have to explain basic principles of democratic and liberal government. Many people seem to think that because it is a transnational medium that national governments can all become like China or the old Egypt, and just rule by decree or the wishes of an absolute authority. 
National governments have no more legitimacy or authority to make 
____________________________________________________________
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