[governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs

[parminder]

On Thursday 23 August 2012 11:55 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:03 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> Problem is, ICANN apologists claim so, especially when caught on the 
>> wrong foot in global discussions - like on this list - faced with 
>> legitimate criticism of how a global infrastructure can be managed as 
>> per legal and executive authority of one country.
>
> I'm surprised anyone would make such a claim. Could you provide a URL? 
>  I'd like to understand the rationale.

What I said about the apologists for the current ICANN-US relationship was;

    "They first claim that ICANN is /de jure/ independent, but when
    pushed with facts, they try to say, ok, well, at least, it is /de
    facto/, independent of US laws."


You tell me that you have never heard of any such claim. Before I try to 
show you when and where such claims have been made, let me, for the sake 
of argument, take your word and agree that no one ever makes any such claim.

  This would obviously means that everyone agrees that ICANN operates 
under US laws (which is kind of same as 'oversight') for its full range 
of its functions. Right!

Therefore, it is agreed that ICANN can be forced to change its decisions 
by the US courts, legally exercised executive power etc. Also as all 
entities subject to any jurisdiction do,/*ICANN must already be 
carefully factoring in US law in all its decisions, knowing that in 
default its decisions can be struck down*/ (this kind of 
less-than-very-obvious control is of very great significance).

  I hope you agree that I am still following a logical consistent argument!

Now, if all this is true; are we not justified in saying that ICANN 
largely confirms to the command and wishes of the US state - and through 
it, assuming a good degree of democracy in the US - of the the people of 
the US  - and correspondingly not of the people of the rest of the world.

To the extent that ICANN does take global inputs for its policy 
development, it is within (relatively narrow) confines or constraints of 
the degrees of freedom allowed by US law and executive authority.

Why then it not be considered legitimate that the rest of world finds 
this situation not acceptable, being not democratic etc?

  Why do you bring in always, to any proposal for more democratic 
alternatives, the issue of having to show you the proof that (1) the 
present system is not working (not being democratic is enough reason, 
isnt it!) and (2) how an alternative system will be better (something 
that can never be proved by demonstration).

parminder










>
> Thanks,
> -drc
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120825/f4df806b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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