<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><div>"The key to completing this process is to focus on the practical ways to put the appropriate and sufficient power in the community hands."<br /><br />The blogpost argues that it would be too long of a process to include the california courts, as the sole member model incorporates, but appropriate and sufficient power for the community needs to be empowered further by an legal type entity the community can trust to go to in case the internal processes become compromised or exclusionary over time, 10, 20, 50 years from now ICANN members could say, "look, this isn't workkng well for the internet communtiy because power has consolidated over time." <br /><br />The multistakeholder process, like any process, needs credible courts or legal wikileaks type processes built in to the overall process, just like a democracy needs credible courts to prevent it from becoming a U.S. style
Oligarchy, but are the current American courts really the answer? No, in fact, the only credible challenges the corrupt American government has been met with in recent years are from snowden and wikileaks types, whose availability to whistleblowers has caused the corrupt American government to hesitate on its Oligarchy programmes.<br /><br />The courts in the United States have already proven themselves unable to maintain the American Democracy since 1976, so why should the community trust the california courts with any ICANNrocess?Since Supreme court decisions such as "Buckley vs Valeo " and "Citizens United" allowed American politicans to choose for the last 40 years to become tools of the American Oligarchy, which controls a significant portion of the American media, the california courts cannot and should not be incorporated into ICANN, an external legal whistleblower structure should be kncorporated, but in the absence of that external
whistleblower structure I will still vote for the Sole Member model because it does have the courts, which are slightly better than no legal process at all, in my opinion.<br /><br />Ron</div></td></tr></table> <div id="_origMsg_">
<div>
<br />
<div>
<div style="font-size:0.9em">
<hr size="1">
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span>
</b>
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span>
</b>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span>
</b>
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span>
</b>
[CCWG-ACCT] impressions around the accountability discussions <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span>
</b>
Wed, Oct 21, 2015 9:16:55 AM <br>
</div>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">Andrew and I have written a brief article about our personal<BR>impressions on the accountability discussions, and particularly<BR>reflecting them to our experience on similar arrangements in<BR>other organisations. We hope this is a constructive<BR>contribution to the discussion:<BR><BR><a href="http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/10/strange-but-familiar-in-dublin/" target=_blank >http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/10/strange-but-familiar-in-dublin/</a><BR><BR>Jari Arkko<BR><BR></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>