Re: [ga] Particular People

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

         As Alexander has pointed out, the issue here is not whether 
Thomas, or Eric, or Jeff can participate in ICANN processes; it is whether 
they can participate in this task force **as representatives of the 
GA**.  Alexander argues that the GA membership should get to decide who our 
representatives will be.  You are arguing that we should not get to make 
that decision.  While you have opposed NC actions that "disenfranchise[] 
our membership," you are disenfranchising the membership here.  Further, 
you are doing so in the face of clear and widespread opposition to your 
position among the GA membership, and *no* expressions of support for that 
position other than that of Jeff Williams.  That ill behooves a chair whose 
function is to articulate and implement GA consensus.

Jon



At 11:26 AM 12/14/2001 -0500, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Alexander Svensson, in citing the approach advocated by Jonathan Weinberg,
>argues that this option gives a  majority of the GA the ability to say that
>it doesn't want "particular people" representing it.
>
>For more than the last six months the Names Council has made it clear that
>they do not want "particular people" (the GA) to participate in open working
>groups.  They believe that they have the right to decide as a majority that
>they can discriminate against the membership of this Assembly and to take
>procedural steps to limit the participation of those undesirables that would
>otherwise be free to openly participate in the work of the DNSO.   I have
>steadfastly argued that such an approach disenfranchises our membership and
>contravenes the spirit of our Bylaws.
>
>Our Bylaws require that we shall operate consistent with procedures designed
>to ensure fairness.  Denying "particular people" their right to fully
>participate in the ICANN process is contrary to our founding principles.
>
>Accordingly, I will not support the approach advocated by Alex Svensson.
>
>In the history of our planet we have noted many attempts to deny a voice to
>"particular people":  women, blacks, homosexuals (most of whom, as activists,
>were viewed by the majority as kooks, trouble-makers or ranting lunatics).
>Within democratic institutions, the majority has long believed that it has a
>right to discriminate against the minority -- but ICANN, as we know, is not a
>democratic institution, it is a consensus-based organization in which every
>voice, no matter how shrill or annoying, is guaranteed the opportunity to
>fair participate.
>
>Three members of our Assembly have come forward expressing an interest in
>doing a job that nobody else was willing to do.  I do not wish to deny them
>that opportunity just because a majority that was unwilling to do that job
>thinks that it has a right to discriminate against them.
>
>I extend to the Assembly the opportunity to discuss and debate this matter
>further.  I will notify the Secretariat of a final decision on Monday.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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