Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:15:45 -0400 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Milton,
Unfortunately much of this discussion is slicing into the issues under a
constrained (in some cases simply binary) understanding of process here.
You would be correct in what you say if your version of the core issues
here was correct, but it is not. Put in terribly simple corporate terms,
ICANN as a corporation is making product decisions, entering into
contractual agreements, and then going completely silent when issues
arise around them, or making very non-consultative decisions that sow
anger and confusion./Example: ICANN and staff either did or did not
issue a controversial directive to .doctor earlier this month. The
.doctor applicant says it did and ICANN remains mute. /This left NCSG to
have a "maybe it did, maybe it didn't" discussion that lead nowhere.
This has nothing to do with your cheap shot of calling discussion of
these issues an appeal to "the heckler's veto". The less cheap shot come
back to that is that expertise that misses context can be damaging to
reasoned dialogue if credibility from credentials substitutes for
evidence and analysis in context.
What is being asked outside the walled city of ICANN is how is it
performing in terms of corporate social responsibility, and in general
that has to do with not only its product decisions (which are not solely
binary here) but how it engages in product related dialogues outside the
walls of the city. On that later part ICANN remains mute and that will
come back to haunt it.
Sam L.
On 30/03/2015 9:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> But this idea (ICANN must use its power to suppress anything
> controversial or it will come back to haunt it) is one of the WORST
> guides to policy we can possibly have. Such a view not only would make
> ICANN responsible for the views of anyone to which it hands a domain,
> it encourages it to regulate and suppress any form of expression that
> offends anyone – which means, of course that almost any significant
> form of expression could be targeted. In American legal theory, we
> call this the heckler’s veto.
>
> *From:*Sam Lanfranco [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
> "These episodes around gTLDs are going to come back to haunt ICANN in
> ways that will not be pleasant.". :-(
>
>
|
|
|