[governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes?

[parminder]

On Friday 07 December 2012 09:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> So, you object to the use of the term 'US exceptionalism'! You are  on 
> record asserting repeatedly that you think ICANN should continue to be 
> subject to US laws, at least in the areas of regulation of 
> non-profits, competition and FoE...... presumable more...... (in any 
> case an entity is either subject to a jurisdiction, or it is not; 
> there are no choices available for an entity to be subject to some 
> laws and not others).
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] One last attempt to salvage an informed, honest 
> discussion of this issue./*
>

Milton,

An informed honest discussion indeed is possible, and required, on this 
important matter, just if you could rein in your haughty impatience 
('last attempt' 'no point discussing this further' kind of stuff) and 
not refer to your interlocutors as 'people with no real ideas' and as 
someone who cannot be expected to know the difference between one branch 
of economics and other.... Just try it. You will sound much more 
persuasive in your arguments that way....

parminder

> *//*
>
> *//*
>
> */I am on record, and have been for years, for favoring the 
> DE-nationalization of ICANN. Which means that I view the US govt the 
> same way I view any other govt, I want them out. This is not “US 
> exceptionalism” but its opposite. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */On the issue of ICANN’s corporate home, the position is a bit more 
> complex, but if one is interested in real discussion rather than 
> posturing, it is not that hard to figure out and to debate the merits:/*
>
> */a./**/If ICANN is incorporated as a private entity, it will have to 
> be in one jurisdiction. As jurisdictions go, there is nothing 
> intrinsically worse about the State of California than other 
> jurisdictions. It may be better than many others. Yes, this means that 
> US jurisdiction has more influence in some types of disputes than 
> others. But special status for the home jurisdiction would be true 
> regardless of where it is incorporated. So if Parminder or others 
> would like to make a case for another state or nation-state 
> jurisdiction, let them do so. So far, no one has./*
>
> */b./**/If ICANN is not incorporated as a private nonprofit, but as an 
> international org under international law, there are real concerns 
> that ought to give any internet freedom advocate pause:/*
>
> */a./**/International orgs can be _less_ accountable than a private 
> organization. Parminder dismisses this concern by waving his hand and 
> saying that he wants the international treaty to make sure it is 
> accountable. My response: good luck with that. Give me one real-world 
> example of when that has worked, and you might get some traction in 
> this debate./*
>
> */b./**/The current political situation in the world suggests that the 
> negotiation of such a treaty would become an opportunity for states to 
> assert more control of the internet. This is clear both from the 
> behavior of ICANN’s GAC and from the behavior of many states in the 
> WCIT. Supporters of international law such as Parminder need to 
> explain how they get a treaty and international law that bypasses 
> these problems. So far, they haven’t./*
>
> */c./**/IGP has filed formal comments suggesting the outlines of 
> international treaty principles that would limit ICANN’s powers and 
> help to secure internet freedom, while retaining its status as a 
> California corp. In other words, Parminder’s charge that we are 
> apologists for the status quo is simply wrong. However, in light of 
> the points made in b) above, we don’t hold out a lot of hope in the 
> current situation for such a treaty to be ratified. Note the fate of 
> Brazil’s IG principles which despite widespread civil society support 
> cannot make it through the govt. Until there is strong support for the 
> type of principles we put forth in our proposal it would be foolish to 
> push ICANN into an international treaty negotiation./*
>
> */Happy to engage in any reasonable discussion of these points. Not 
> interested in any tub-thumping about the US and warn others not to be 
> misled by caricatures and oversimplifications peddled by people with 
> no real ideas. /*
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121209/40d81f38/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