[ga] PROPOSED CROSS CANDIDATE PLATFORM

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 12:07 25/08/01, William S. Lovell said:
>I'm afraid that what we are seeing here is "good old American politics."

Dear Bill,
My point was targeted to the whole ICANN decision taking system. Your post 
is quite interesting: I would fully support you should I be a Yankee. But I 
am not.

We faced that problems in France and addressed them.  Elections and public 
mandates are state business. So State pays for them: funding is mostly by 
the State, expenses are controlled, wealth increases during a mandate are 
to be reported/will be scrutinized, no business funding. I do not claim it 
is perfect and there are no bypasses. I say there is a clear system 
according to a voted policy.

Questions are simple:
- is the ICANN an US or an International venture?.
- is the ICANN a business or a common interest endeavor?
- is "one dollar one vote" better for the ICANN that "one 
concern/competence/interest one vote"?

I do not want to argue or campaign on this. I want us to consider the 
problem. I therefore propose the following cross-candidate position - 
Joana, Amadeu, Paul and Eric are more than welcome to support it if they want:

"every proposition made and every decision taken at the ICANN should include:
- a part telling how this proposition or this decision fights the lingual, 
digital and financial divides.
- a part telling concisely how participants have covered its costs 
(secretariat, time, travel, telephone, etc...): family money, Xxx Inc. 
professional duty, Zzz Gov representation, foundation.
"
Is there anything there anyone can object? I would be glad to know.

Jefsey




>What happens in American politics is that "warchests" are put together,
>by which is meant piles of money from the backers of the candidate.
>And who are those backers?  Other citizens who happen to have
>money, have some sympathy with the aims of the candidate, perhaps,
>but often want the candidate to do something for them if elected.  This
>latter kind of problem is not likely to arise in an ICANN context --
>what power to do anything to aid an individual backer would a
>winning candidate ever have? -- but the rest remains.
>
>By that "rest" I mean that the less wealthy candidates are coming
>into a role in which they must "campaign" not just for votes, but
>for financial backing. That may seem unfortunate, but not to do so
>is to leave the field to the rich, as it is said that Rockefeller "bought"
>his elections out of his own pocket, Ross Perot certainly tried to,
>and JFK, of course, "bought Richard Daley and Cook County
>to gain the Presidency."  There must be developed enough of an
>interest in these elections, and enough commitment to the goals
>of some particular candidate, to ensure that such candidate will
>be able, not in this case to buy "air time" on the tube, or ads in
>the newspapers, but at least (at this stage of the development
>of ICANN) to show up at various international meetings.
>
>The candidate that has the "platform" that will best serve the bulk
>of Internet users,  "Individuals," "Registrants," "Domain Name
>Holders," and the like, and has made those principles and goals
>clear, should be acknowledged and recognized for such efforts
>by General Assembly members through the development of private
>"warchests" that would support the "candidate of their choice."
>It is enough of a sacrifice of a candidate to put in the many hours,
>over months and indeed years, that it takes to encompass the issues
>that ICANN faces, develop sound policies to address those issues,
>and then articulate those policies in these pages, while at the same
>time trying to keep body and soul together.  If the members of the
>General Assembly are not willing to back that kind of effort at
>least to the extent that a candidate can have an even playing field
>(just to be able to "show up" at a meeting, for heaven's sake!), well,
>the old saw is that "people get the kind of government they deserve" --
>the rich will continue to reign.
>
>In principle, Joanna is quite correct in what she says below.
>However, it seems evident to me that ICANN is not going
>to loose a dime for less wealthy candidates, so it is again the
>job of the GA membership to make itself known.  These are
>indeed  a good cross-section of the stakeholders to whom
>Joanna refers, and for whom she is fighting, and I now feel
>that "the ball is in their court."
>
>The dominant feature of ICANN, from its formation, has been
>its control by the rich and powerful, and what we have got out
>of that is such things as the UDRP for the trademark lobby,
>Registries and Registrars were necessarily given SOs but
>nobody ever heard of the Registrants (who, being the "public,"
>are really those for the benefit of whom the Internet is supposed
>to be run), and the whole rest of that sad litany.  If the members
>of the General Assembly really want to change that, they will
>have to do it in the old fashioned way: select a candidate that
>will represent your interests well, and then back that candidate
>to the hilt -- both with your vote and with your check book.
>This is the real world here, the seat of power is the Board
>of Directors of ICANN, and over time it must be filled with
>people such as Joanna (and Karl Auerbach) who have been
>captured by no one, are not corporate puppets, and truly
>have the interests of the stakeholders at heart. There must
>be the same kind of "power play" that gained advantage to
>others who were willing to join together to make that effort.
>
>(It should be added, of course, that "puppets" can be found
>throughout the ICANN structure, so what is said above does
>not just apply to Board of Directors elections.)
>
>Bill Lovell
>
>Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > on 8/24/01 9:49 PM, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales at vany@sdnp.org.pa wrote:
> >
> > > ICANN has being honest in not show any favoritism for any
> > > candidate in any means.
> >
> > Honesty is not the issue. Participation by all affected stakeholders in the
> > process is the issue. Without wishing to put words into Jefsey's mouth, I
> > think he is saying that ICANN discriminates against those with few material
> > gains. By upholding a policy that insists every participant is responsible
> > for their own funding, which policy favors the wealthy and those who are
> > subsidised by corporate funding, ICANN is not offering equal opportunities
> > for all affected stakeholders. The evidence is there for all to see.
> >
> > The bottom line is that, under the current structure, if a person seeks to
> > participate fully, including at top level, they have to "pay to play", and
> > for some affected groups, that is simply not possible (witness the NCDNHC
> > difficulties). Assuming that most of the public are not wealthy, ICANN 
> has a
> > duty to develop a policy, and the practical means to implement such a
> > policy, that does not discriminate against any financially disadvantaged
> > group. The Bylaws, under which ICANN operates, are there to protect the
> > public benefit, and ignoring the issue of unequal wealth in this world
> > doesn't make the problem go away.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Joanna
> >
> > The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> > (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> > Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
> > Part I:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> > Part II:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> > (Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
> > Reader, which is available for free down load at
> > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>
>
>The URLs for Best Practices:
>DNSO Citation:
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
>(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
>Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
>Part I:
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
>Part II:
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
>(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
>Reader, which is available for free down load at
>http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html