[governance] Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration

[Milton L Mueller]

Parminder you have completely missed the point. In a rather disturbing way. 

> -----Original Message-----
> It is surprising to what elegantly logical length people can go to shirk
> responsibility.... It seems to be written all over the report that
> 'closed generic' TLDs are bad for public interest, but it is amusing how
> the Independent Objector (IO) wriggles out of the responsibility of
> having to do anything about them.

The IO said that the specific, limited criteria on which he is allowed to object do not allow him to object to a TLD simply because it is a closed generic. 
He is correct. 

What is disturbing about your response is that you apparently want the IO to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide what is in the "public interest" - an undefined and almost inherently undefinable term - and then impose it on us, without any process or any checks and balances. And you want this because YOU have decided that closed generics are bad. 

The distinction here is between rule of law and arbitrary rule. So you need to understand that "democratic governance" means neither rule of momentary majorities, mobs, or powerful individuals acting arbitrarily based on whatever they feel is in the public interest. It means  laws and policies made through a representative and participatory process, constrained by due process and individual rights. It is disappointing that you just want a populist dictator to impose the 'right' decision, 'right' being defined as whatever you want. And of course, when someone exploits that arbitrary power to do something you don't like, you will scream about violation of process and how ICANN is undemocratic. But you are revealing your true colors here. It is in fact a common problem with so-called "progressives," they don't have a very deep understanding of how and why one needs to constrain power, they just believe that if you give the 'right people' with the right ideas (i.e., their ideas) absolute power then everything will be fine. 

> In fact, it is really surprising the extent to which people within what
> is called as the ICANN community seem to agree that 'closed generic'
> TLDs are not quite right but still insist that it is somehow someone
> else's responsibility to do something about it... All kinds of

No, in the public comments it is obvious that the arguments against closed generics were weak and rhetorical. The arguments for allowing the closed generic model as one of many possible models of managing a TLD were clearly more intelligently argued. The anti-closed generic arguments relied entirely on fear-based claims about monopoly power which had no basis in economic facts or theory, or anti-corporate rhetoric, or the attempts of business competitors attempting to hamstring a rival. The whole thing was pretty comical.


-------------- 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