[LAC-Discuss] FW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era ofCensorshipinDomain Names

Tue Apr 10 09:02:11 EDT 2007

.....well said,  by whoever said it first!

-----Original Message-----
From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 9:27 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era ofCensorshipinDomain
Names

Dear Milton,

Thank you for your response. 

1. "But if they don't agree, on what basis can they impose a uniform policy

on the entire world, via ICANN? " 

I must confess surprise at such a simplistic statement. Policy formulation

is complex, inter alia, because it is a a process of negotiation amongst

different interest groups. If everybody agreed easily and initially, there

would be no need for political processes at all. Look at WTO, WIPO, Kyoto

protocol ... In every such space there is fierce contestation and

negotiation. The current Doha round of WTO is caught in strong differences,

should Governments persist to try and find a meaningful consensus or should

they abandon it? These are new global spaces and the processes of policy

making perhaps is being discovered / invented as we go along.

All stakeholders, including civil society, certainly governments, private

sector, with or without ICANN (which is all said and done, is under the

legal oversight of a single country, even as it makes decisions on global,

multilateral issues, hence being vulnerable to being considered an archaic

entity - we agree on this point) have to discuss the ways by which we will

govern these new spaces that are already critical and becoming even more

critical to our lives. 

But even before that we need to acknowledge that this is a public policy

space and different interest groups will have a legitimate presence in this

space. For some of us, it is a mantra that 'the internet community is not

only those who logon to the internt, but all those whose lives are impacted

by it' by the later definition, we cover practically whole of humanity, 90%

+,  of who are not part of these internet governance spaces as these

governance lists ... For what its worth and with all its drawbacks and

limitations, as of today, their only hope to having their interests

represented in internet governance is through their Governments (not really

through the few hundred individuals on this list, however well read,

intelligent and compassionate we may be)

2. "This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or what

are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of people like

you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly advocate for a free

internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and institute that.

Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit poassively back and

accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We must actively shape and

define them, based on our knowledge and our conscience.  That is the

business we are in here, isn't it? "

I agree with this point made above. Of course, society is not independent of

the individuals **and institutions** comprising it and we all shape such

rights together. My point was slightly different, I was stating that your

strong objection to Vittorio, asking why Governments opposition should not

be considered, was not valid. You said that the Government  opposition

should not be considered - "Not if they are proposing to restrict a

fundamental human right."

My point is that fundamental rights are themselves constituted in society

through these very Governments and are enforced (not by you, me or any other

individual) by the same Governments. The understanding and interpretation of

such 'restriction on fundamental rights' itself needs to be debated and

understood widely. Hence I don't know if we can apriori refuse Government

role based on such beliefs. 

Regards

Guru

-----Original Message-----

From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] 

Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 8:26 PM

To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org

Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era ofCensorshipinDomain

Names

>>> guru at itforchange.net 4/4/2007 9:46 AM >>>

>So 200 or so Governments not agreeing amongst themselves does not in any

way reduce their legitimacy as stakeholders to this process.

No one said govts were not legitimate actors per se. But if they don't

agree, on what basis can they impose a uniform policy on the entire world,

via ICANN? 

>Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are they what

societies (with active participation of Governments) have accepted at 

>particular points in time.

This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or what are

the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of people like you

and me. And if I and others who agree strongly advocate for a free internet

and free expression, then "society" may accept and institute that. Let's

have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit poassively back and accept

what "society" tells us is our rights. We must actively shape and define

them, based on our knowledge and our conscience.  That is the business we

are in here, isn't it? 

-----Original Message-----

From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:11 AM

To: vb at bertola.eu

Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org

Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of CensorshipinDomain

Names

>>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu> 04/03/07 7:04 PM >>>

>In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should be

disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion has 

>to be taken into account.

Not if they are proposing to restrict a fundamental human right. 

And "governments" don't have a single opinion, in case you hadn't noticed.

We have over 200 of them and their laws don't agree on this matter. This

business of lumping so-called "stakeholders" into homogeneous groups is

really getting out of hand. 

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, send any message to:

     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:

     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070410/f7684382/attachment.html>