<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Absolutely.<br>
<br>
But with regards the practical problem at hand ― i.e. to solve the
legitimacy/accountability problem that's arising from the
transition,<br>
<br>
by either <br>
<br>
i) embedding checks and balance at the foundation level of an entity
which can then perhaps sometimes expand on its ability to make rules
in related areas; <br>
<br>
or, <br>
<br>
ii) by denying the need for such a precise formulation at the
foundational level with contracts that expressly limit the entity's
scope<br>
<br>
― it seems to me that ii) is more efficient.<br>
<br>
It doesn't preclude counter-hegemonic actions and discourses either.
But unless the foundational terms proposed are so awesome (like, I
don't know, direct democracy maybe?) ... and it doesn't seem that
way when one reads the blog post, then its probably best to just say
"this is a contract giving you the root that its *not* ok to use it
to actively enforce other things!"<br>
<br>
We will invoke public interest plenty of times in the future, and so
will every other actor in this political battle of representation
over what the public interest is. But let's also face it because I
think this is an important question, perhaps the only one:<br>
<br>
what progressive uses of the ability to use the root as an enforcer
of things related could there be?<br>
<br>
And, as a corollary<br>
<br>
what reactionary uses of the ability to use the root as an enforcer
of things related could there be?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/12/2014 12:56 PM, William Drake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6A5CC906-E79D-42C4-81A5-5D13A471B434@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi<br class="">
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Dec 22, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Milton L Mueller
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu"
class="">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size:
18px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Indeed,
if you pay careful attention to ICANN's past 5-8 years you
find that the term is most commonly used by the BC and
most frequently invoked by GAC, Steve DelBianco and
Marilyn Cade, usually to justify policies that we don't
support</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">To me this is an argument for contesting and
hopefully re-appropriating the term in line with a coherent
vision that reflects our values, rather for than dismissing the
concept as inherently flawed and to be avoided (which it will
not be). This is precisely where civil society should be
weighing in forcefully with counter-hegemonic discourse, rather
than letting others control things by default because nobody
bothers to push back.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Bill</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>