Re: [ga] Karl's latest posting

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Joe's latest posting contains his usual careless reasoning.

Joe's endorsement of ICANN assumes that it is OK for USG to control the DNS
via its ICANN quango. This false assumption colours his reasoning, because
it means he commences from erroneous premisses to conclusions which have
little relevance to the arguments of others.

I will admit that Joe's logic is sometimes coherent, but it is logic
confined within an alternative universe : a universe of US supremacy which
presupposes the right of the US to "do what it likes just because it can".

In this momentous week, of all weeks, Joe Sims fails to understand the
offence caused internationally by the failure of USG to share
decision-making with other nation states.

ICANN is less appropriate than other alternatives because ICANN is
accountable primarily to USG, and exists only as an expression of American
control of the DNS. The GAC does not determine the existence of ICANN, the
DoC does.

What allows America the "God-given right" to appoint ICANN, define ICANN,
and dismiss ICANN? It is this failure to recognise the underlying
illegitimacy of ICANN - its lack of accountability to the rest of the
world - that renders Joe's arguments weak and supine.

It is absolutely obvious that the administration of the DNS should be
overseen by the whole international community, and that decisions about the
appropriateness of ICANN should not be reserved for DoC and USG.

It is a great shame, but as in International Affairs generally at this point
in history, what can be observed is the arrogance of power, the loose and
false assumptions of moral self-righteousness, the cloying self-pitying of a
selfish and spoilt element within a dominant society, the sentimental
Disneyesque shallowness of a section of culture that is founded on easy
answers and money-driven cheap and transient values. It is crass but it
cannot perceive itself for what it is.

In the context of ICANN, Joe Sims seems to me to be the epitome of a
bullying, arrogant Americanism which sickens other nations, with its cynical
abandonment of other people's arguments and interests.

I do not speak of ordinary American people, many of whom are my friends, but
of those who obsess on power and control, and prevail under the present
administration.

The failure of America to work *with* the rest of the world, the bull-dozing
contempt for international process, the "top-down" domination of structures
which reach out globally and impact the rest of us... you can see it all in
ICANN.

Little wonder that voices of dissent call for ICANN to have its mandate
removed, and call for a just and transparent administration of the DNS that
is accountable *not* to one nation, but to the community of nations...

The Internet belongs to the whole world.

So why should ICANN be an appointment of the DoC?

Sorry Joe, but you just don't get the central fault-line. If you can't see
the fault-line which divides USG / ICANN from the rest of us, then no
logical process on your part will seem like more than spin and
self-interest. You will simply be talking to your own clique, with power as
your pretext. You fail to persuade people, because you assume the right to
control.

We need a DNS administration which is ceded to a body beyond the control of
America alone.

Otherwise, it's just more Empire, just more 'new American century'.

There's no accountability to the rest of the world.


Yrs,


Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Sims <jsims@JonesDay.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 5:03 PM
Subject: [ga] Karl's latest posting


> Karl's latest posting contains his usual careless reasoning.
>
> He says that the Internet user community is not present in either ICANN or
> the ITU.  Of course, he means by "internet user community" only that
> portion that does not include those segments of the community that he
> constantly ignores -- providers, industry, education, non-commercial orgs.
> In other words, the portion that is not present, according to Karl, is
> individuals acting as individuals.  This may or may not be correct -- it
> depends on whether you accept his nonsensical comparison of the various
> ways for individuals to express their views in ICANN to village soviets --
> but it certainly is not the case that the "internet user community" is not
> present in both organizations.  It certainly is present in both, although
> more visibly and with more authority in ICANN.
>
> Then he asserts that, since the government role is larger in the ITU than
> in ICANN, the ITU would be the preferred forum for the "internet user
> community" as he defines it because the governmental role is (1) less
> diluted and (2) more formalized in the ITU than in ICANN.  The first point
> is probably correct; governments absolutely control ITU decisions and only
> exercise significant influence on ICANN decisions.  However, many people
> (including large portions of the actual "internet user community," in
> contrast to the one Karl sees) think this is a comparative advantage of
> ICANN.  The second point is utter nonsense, and demonstrates a pretty
> critical lack of understanding of how governments work.  Does Karl
actually
> believe that Nancy Victory is not "clearly credentialed" by the US
> government when she sits at the GAC?  Or that Sharil Tarmizi, the current
> Chair of the GAC, is not a legitimate government representative?  How does
> Karl think that governmental delegates to the ITU get selected, and
exactly
> how does he think that differs from the selection process for GAC
> representatives?  Does Karl believe that he can exercise more influence
> over Nancy Victory in her activities at the ITU, or of the representative
> from the State Department who is the US delegate to certain ITU fora, than
> he can with respect to the US's activities at ICANN?   I suspect that
> Karl's real problem is that he does not seem to be able to influence
> anyone, including governmental representatives, but I do not think that is
> a function of the forum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html