<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 14 August 2016 10:43 PM, John
Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:812C8E9C-A1A5-4848-B9CC-2758636E593C@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<font face="Verdana">snip</font>
<div>Parminder - </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>It’s also difficult to go anywhere and not make use of
standard fasteners </div>
<div>(nuts, bolts, etc.) - the chair holding you up is likely
dependent upon them</div>
<div>right now, and the near universal adoption of same is as
pervasive as the</div>
<div>Internet, if not more so… Since you equate such popularity
with "public </div>
<div>governance", you might want to keep apprised of these
standards as well - </div>
<div><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.astm.org/Standards/fastener-standards.html"
class="">http://www.astm.org/Standards/fastener-standards.html</a>></div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Each of these “laws" most certainly "applies to all people of
the world” - I </div>
<div>am not certain if anyone has yet let them know that they are
engaged (per </div>
<div>your dictate) in "a matter that is legitimately an issue of
public governance.”</div>
<div>but it looks to be a large undertaking to do so...</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:812C8E9C-A1A5-4848-B9CC-2758636E593C@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>p.s. my views alone.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>