Re: [ga] Particular People

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Process;
>
> If the purpose for us following the process is to exclude people,
> then there is something wrong with the process.
>
> If the purpose for us following the process is to guarantee
> rights of inclusiveness then it is wrong not to follow the process.
>
> TR made it clear that he could only participate under the terms
> which were in existence when he volunteered.  So we argued
> about changing the terms during the middle of the process.  I
> do not care about the terms that were changed but I have to agree
> changing the process in mid stream is no process at all.
>
> Now clearly WXW was just arguing the matter out of hatred for
> Danny, Jeff and I.  But by and large the argument was over
> proper process.
>
> There are people who cannot participate meaningfully on an open
> forum WG, like apparently TR.  For them a strict TF is a good
> methodology, but not if they have to engage in team work with
> people with different views. That's fine it is good he told us.
>
> While the GA could never be called a "tolerant forum", I for one
> have never felt excluded or that the process denies me a right to
> total inclusion.  The only exclusion practiced here is of the people
> who do not care for what ever reason to be abused on a list.
> That's fine also, unless we follow our process and invoke monitors.
>
> As Alexander points out here the problem is when selective enforcement
> is
> exercised.
>
> If we do not enforce the list rules except against Jeff and I and we
> don't enforce the election to TF rules except against Jeff and I that
> seems rather odd. I am just saying that "if that were the case".
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> > [I still encourage people to endorse the letter to the
> > Chair -- http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03694.html]
> >
> > Danny,
> >
> > I'm afraid you are mixing the meanings of *participating*
> > and *representing* to a point where you think you are
> > advocating inclusiveness but instead are misrepresenting
> > what the GA wants.
> >
> > We agree that minorities have to be protected. They
> > should have the right to participate, including
> > meaningful chances to be heard, elected etc. And I think
> > the chances of such minorities -- even "one-person
> > minorities" -- of getting heard are quite big on the GA
> > list (unless they grossly violate the list rules).
> >
> > Is there a dominating majority advocating a single
> > opinion in the GA? Methinks not. We have people who are
> > highly critical of ICANN and want it to be replaced
> > for a variety of reasons. We have people who think
> > ICANN is the lesser evil and want to improve it,
> > under certain conditions. Others see ICANN as victim
> > of unjustified attacks. Some emphasize the U.S. aspect,
> > others the international aspect. Additionally, there
> > are people focussing on technical, social, political
> > or economic issues. The GA is probably the most
> > heterogenous of all parts of ICANN (except At Large
> > which is today only visible in its choice of directors).
> >
> > While everyone has the right to participate (provided
> > he or she respects acceptable rules), nobody has the
> > right to represent the GA unless properly elected. This
> > is *not* a form of discrimination. I'm offended to be
> > implicitly compared to people denying "a voice" to women,
> > blacks and homosexuals. I'm not denying anyone a *voice*.
> > I *am* denying all three candidates an automatic right to
> > *representation*, because that makes a difference!
> >
> > You prefer Working Groups to Task Forces -- fine and
> > agreed. But as long as there are TF seats to be filled
> > by the GA, the GA should select the representatives
> > and not the GA Chair by making midway changes to the vote.
> > If the other two candidates had been e.g. Kent Crispin
> > and Dave Crocker and you had still stuck to your
> > automatic representation by virtue of candidacy and
> > sent them to the Task Force, I would certainly have had
> > respect for your consequent application of that approach.
> > But I would still think that it was wrong.
> >
> > Regards,
> > /// Alexander (last posting on this topic)

--
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