On Sunday 14 August 2016 10:43 PM, John Curran wrote:

snip
Parminder -

It’s also difficult to go anywhere and not make use of standard fasteners

(nuts, bolts, etc.) - the chair holding you up is likely dependent upon them

right now, and the near universal adoption of same is as pervasive as the

Internet, if not more so… Since you equate such popularity with "public

governance", you might want to keep apprised of these standards as well -

<http://www.astm.org/Standards/fastener-standards.html>

Each of these “laws" most certainly "applies to all people of the world” - I

am not certain if anyone has yet let them know that they are engaged (per

your dictate) in "a matter that is legitimately an issue of public governance.”

but it looks to be a large undertaking to do so...

John

Nothing here is my dictate. These are just the normal political terms and arrangements, as they exist in the world today. it is you and ICANN which is trying to claim a (post democratic) exception.

Yes, all those that you describe are important standards, applied across the world. However, nowhere is the application of these standards done in a manner that claims exemption from an higher layer of public governance to which they remain subject. Unlike ICANN these process do not claim a global sovereignty of its/ their own.

The problem is that you and others want to both (1) claim ICANN processes as being merely standards making and technical coordination and (2) also claim sovereignty for ICANN from any higher layer of public governance. You cannot have both. That is the point. If done by claiming sovereignty from any higher layer of public governance, ICANN's so called technical functions, that are both socially very important, and have great de facto enforceability, become issues of public governance.

parminder

/John

p.s. my views alone.