[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Alejandro Pisanty
apisanty at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 20:38:29 UTC 2018
Well, it didn't happen. And by the way, no, the theory is flawed, the
atomic unit is not the individual, not for all processes, not for all
purposes, not in all societies, not for all interactions. There's a few
dozen if not more thousands of years of human history that speaks to the
effect of various levels of aggregation, much of which is called
"politics." When you act as an individual for individual or
collective-benefit interests you have to leave aside your interests as a
business. If they are overwhelming you have to recuse yourself. If you are
a policy-making government official you don't have freedom enough to
represent anyone else (not even yourself, outside say your preferences in
sports), so you declare that and recuse yourself or let yourself be
accompanied to the door.
Also, the Lemley and Froomkin paper on the US Government's delegation of
functions to ICANN suggested that the evolution should be towards either
full governmental control or unfettered markets. Neither happened.
The "democratic deficit" of multistakeholder governance is a known problem,
for the Internet and elsewhere, and is being managed. It is tougher to
manage when participants refuse to discolose their interests or believe
they alone can determine whether they themselves are in a conflict of
interest situation, but in a large enough community even that is
manageable.
Fast forward, not to the present debate but to twenty years ago, the
question is not why ICANN would choose to call itself a regulator, but why
individuals, ISPs (foundational or more recent), consultancies, NGOs (the
honest ones which are many, the ones covering up for other interests,
hmmm), and anyone else would choose that.
Still in the twenty-years-ago level, antitrust: solved. ICANN's
architecture makes it harder for a single set of interests to collude and
exert undue market power (and boy do they try hard, on the backs of many
naive souls); and it has been tested by some pretty aggressive litigation.
Anything else need a rehash, or are there some "today" issues to spend time
and energy on?
Alejandro Pisanty
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> Roberto: As you know I've been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of
> governance since before ICANN was created. And as many foresaw way back
> then, certain "stakeholder" groups have become rather more powerful than
> others to the degree that one can fairly argue that ICANN is a
> regulatory/governance body that has been captured by those who it purports
> to regulate.
>
> Let us not forget that when ICANN was created promises were made that a
> majority of the seats on the board of directors would be chosen by the
> public. That promise remains unfulfilled. The community of internet users
> ought to have a loud and commanding voice in ICANN yet the stakeholder
> model has left the community of internet users with little more than an
> easily ignored whisper.
>
> One of the things that amuses me, or concerns me, is that stakeholder
> thinking tend to pre-conceive what a given person or thing might be
> interested in - in other words, it ordains, without ever consulting the
> person involved, where a person's "stake" lays. That kind of
> top-down-imposition is, well, not very bottom-up.
>
> Let's look at my own case. Which "stakeholder" pigeon hole box should I
> be stuffed into? Or, should I be allowed to operated as several
> "stakeholders" and thus (unfairly) multiply my voice?
>
> - I am an individual
>
> - I own for profit business corporations (both as a founder or as a
> shareholder.)
>
> - I am a member of public-interest groups.
>
> - I live in a country (and citizen of two.)
>
> - I and my corporations register domain names.
>
> - I and my corporations have trademarks, copyrights, patents and other
> intellectual property.
>
> - I and my corporations have public IP address space (allocated from Jon
> Postel, not by the RIRs.)
>
> - I am an attorney who is involved in intellectual property matters.
>
> - I have written full internet standards that continue wide use on a
> daily basis.
>
> - I have property (partial ownership) interests in domain name
> registries and registrars of ICANN granted TLDs.
>
> I am hardly unique in this way. Every person is a bundle of interests
> that are often at odds with one another. It ought to be up to each
> individual to reconcile these interests, to formulate a vote based on a
> self-made evaluation of which personal interest is more important and ought
> to prevail. Stakeholderism deprives people of the right to reconcile their
> interests; stakeholderism imposes an externally pre-made decision onto that
> person about what are that person's most important concerns.
>
> Stuffing me into one stakeholder box or another the organization (or
> whoever is creating that taxonomy) is a Procrustean act that arbitrarily
> pre-decides which of my interests best express my views.
>
> Stakeholderism, like Procrustes, chops off our arms and stretches our legs
> in order to make each of us fit onto whatever iron bed the organization
> feels is most appropriate.
>
> (For those of you who wonder about "Procrustean" - here's the wikipedia
> page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes )
>
> I suggest that the atomic unit of interest is the individual human
> being. And as a consequence, the only thing that should have a countable
> vote in matters of internet governance are individual human beings.
> Anything else, corporations, domain name owners, intellectual property
> warriors, etc ought to have no voting authority - but will, of course,
> retain the power to articulate arguments to try to convince individual
> people to use their vote in certain ways.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
> On 7/16/18 8:28 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> It is of course a risk that the multi-stakeholder model be tilted towards
> the interests of one part of the stakeholders - this is why, incidentally,
> Fadi was talking about *global* *equal* multi-stakeholder (“GEMS") model.
> That there is a potential corruption of the model is no good reason for
> rejecting it, in particular in lack of a better system. So I would argue
> that the way to go is to make sure that the voice of the different
> stakeholders compose with the requirement of being “global” (meaning all
> have a chance to get to the table) and “equal” (meaning all have the same
> voice).
> In practice, civil society, because of the inherent limitations about
> financial power, should be subsidised to participate, and civil society
> itself has to make sure that it avoids infiltration of lobbyists among its
> rank and file.
> Cheers,
> R
>
>
> On 16.07.2018, at 00:05, bzs at theworld.com wrote:
>
>
> On July 16, 2018 at 01:48 6.Internet at gmail.com(Sivasubramanian M) wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 12:16 AM <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel.
>
>
> ( Understand that it is an anology that isn't perfect). Going by this
> anology,
> it merely requires a simple, very simple fix: Reserve a third of the
> hotel by
> unconditional funding to the stakeholder group that can't afford it, and to
> anyone relatively less privileges even from within even the wealthier
> stakeholder groups. Then we will find the elusive balance.
>
>
> I was thinking of how it exists, specifically ICANN, rather than some
> hypothetical implementation.
>
> The problem is that there is no tie-in (GAC possibly excepted but they
> are advisory) between those who participate and those who are affected
> by the various policy development processes.
>
> Yes in theory anyone, even the poorest internet user, could simply buy
> themselves plane tickets and hotel rooms etc and participate in the
> meetings.
>
> Given the actual way it's organized one would likely have to do that
> three times per year for a few years to rise to any level of
> participation beyond open mikes.
>
> But it's open to anyone! Much like the Ritz Hotel.
>
> It's no accident that multistakeholderism has been referred to as
> system which is "of, by, and for the lobbyists"*.
>
> In a nutshell get rid of anything remotely resembling popularly
> elected voting members (even indirectly) and just let the big
> registries, registrars, and others with financial interests be the
> stakeholders and do all the policy development and approval.
>
> Yes one can identify the occasional exception to that.
>
> * That point was essentially on the wikipedia page for
> multistakeholderism under "Criticisms" but disappeared about a year or
> so ago.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_
> model&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618
>
> Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto,
> J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in
> multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become
> legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a
> democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence
> that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder
> situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who
> would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil
> society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all
> public elections and not only write the laws but pass them,
> enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration
> that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the
> court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum
> requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force
> inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a
> coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be
> lobbyists in a democratic system."{{Citation needed|date=March
> 2014}}
> --
> -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com |
> http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/>
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing listAt-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20180716/4c5c2b95/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the At-Large
mailing list