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

Sun Aug 26 07:41:58 EDT 2012

Lee

On Saturday 25 August 2012 09:40 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> Until someone explains: '(2) how an alternative system will be better 
> (something that can never be proved by demonstration)' - we got what 
> we got, which is a system with ~2 billion users. By some measures 
> that's 'working.' ; )

Similarly as Pax Britannica was 'working' over most of the world in the 
19th century, and was working by many measures, as long as some people 
appropriate the right to decide what these measures are.... The numbers, 
legacy, status quo etc are neither measures of legitimacy or even of the 
greatest effectiveness. What we have, as was with Pax Britannica, is 
just a hegemonic system created and perpetuated by the use of 
illegitimate power. There were enough apologists for Pax Britannica at 
that time - they are a legion - and there are enoforugh  Pax Americana 
now. Not very different at all.

Meanwhile, people fought against illegitimate British domination and 
they will against illegitimate US domination. In this regard, seeking 
proofs of what is wrong with how things are at present is, in my view, a 
rather cynical if not condescending view to take.

>
> Where we go from here is the question.
>
> 1 scenario is status quo, 2nd is ICANN as a free-floating 
> international org.

>
> Several of us have been asking you to try again to come up with a 
> viable 'Third Way' model.
>
> You're saying we academic weenies should go next or what are we good for.

No, Lee, this is not true. Many aspects of such a viable alternatives 
have been discussed here in good detail - like, a OECD's CCICP like body 
to look at global Internet policy matters but not CIR oversight, a kind 
of international CIR Oversight Board with very clearly delimited remit, 
judicial review with the International Court of Justice, a better 
geographic distribution of root servers etc..... Do you really think it 
is wise to present a complete monolithic model in an academic paper 
rather than proceed collaboratively through building on such basic 
outlines, what I have tried through this list? I dont think the academic 
paper route is the best way. The right way is to get a global CS group 
come up with basic elements and propose it as a starting point of 
disucssion globally. (As India proposed a global discussion with CIRP as 
a dialogue opener.) Of course if I see some mass building behind a set 
of proposals, I can try to flesh it out in a week.

parminder

>
> I pass the buck to the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force proposed by 
> Norbert.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder 
> [parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:49 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell 
> Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs
>
>
> 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/20120826/c1affab4/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