ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: global government without representation ICANN style


Title: Help
Mister
 
I don't like your continuing apologies for a corrupt and evasive organisation, and I don't like your attempts to marginalise someone who speaks up for millions of people rather than for a self-perpetuating oligarchy...
 
Turning to Joe Sims comments...
 
JS: Jamie, you're drinking too much coffee too early
 
*****RH: typical patronising and marginalising (like Karl A has been treated - a person who has a greater democratic mandate than all the rest of you)
 
JS: -- or more likely, you fully understand that you are mischaracterizing, but do it anyway.
 
*****RH: what is "mischaracterising" about "It eliminates an elected chair of the DNSO General Assembly. It take away the DNSO's right to elect members of the ICANN board" which were Jamie's words?
 
JS: Anyone that takes the time to actually read the recommendations would notice that the Nominating Committee that you rail against is explicitly intended to be a broad-based representative body; that the recommendations explictly call for changes in the current GNSO constituencies to better reflect all relevant interests; and that the criteria for Board members specifically includes representation of all affected communities.
 
*****RH: Yeah right - trouble is, anyone can "say" those things, but where's the real power?
 
JS:  Of course, we all know that your political objective is to push the position that anything other than direct elections is unacceptable for world democracy,
 
*****RH: a demeaning parody of what Jamie Love actually says - intelligent and reasoned dialogue would be more helpful
 
JS: so it is tactically necessary for you ignore these facts.
 
*****RH: in so far as they ARE facts (which is yet to be proved) there is a justifiable concern that the largest constituency of stakeholders (non-aligned internet users worldwide) will be seriously under-represented, and there is a strong case for a GA to democratically elect its own chair instead of having one "imposed" which smacks of fascism. There is also the background context which YOU know well, of ICANN resisting democratic accountability because it might threaten the leadership power-base. Who's ignoring the facts?
 
JS: This means that people interested in knowing what the recommendations really call for will have to read the actual document rather than rely on the characterizations of agents provocateur like Jamie, whose main interest is in advancing a very specific political agenda that has already been demonstrated to not command consensus support in the ICANN community.
 
*****RH: Churchill's policies did not command consensus support in Nazi Germany. If Jamie Love's policies and views do not command "consensus support" within ICANN, that may be for very good reasons, such as ICANN not liking their Board being challenged. Besides, Jamie Love's views received overwhelming support in the recent GA vote on Motion 1 for a re-bid. If that wasn't "consensus" (because the Board didn't like it), it was at least a clear majority view and received majority support.
 
*****RH: Mister Sims, amazing as it may seem to you, ICANN is not a petty fiefdom to be run by a handful of cognoscenti. The DNS - and the broader administration of the Internet - is a matter of direct interest to millions upon millions of ordinary users, who develop the net, share through it, uphold its integrity, and expect virtuous and fair procedure. The Internet belongs to the whole world and while it is easy to parody "global democracy", ICANN HAS to be accountable to the vast majority of ordinary users who are the main stakeholders. It is obvious that accountability and democracy should go hand in hand, and there are strong reasons why an "imposed" GA chair should be resisted, and why "nominations" are dangerous (in that they may thwart the democratic will). There are equally strong arguments for developing worldwide user groups, and collectively affording the memberships of those groups the right to representation by representatives of their own choice. People have a right to determine their views for themselves (through elected representatives) - NOT to have views determined for them.
 
That way (of "imposed" representatives) lies fascism.
 
If ICANN separates itself from democratic accountability, then expect arrogance, expect corruption or the accommodation of corruption, expect opaque and shady dealings, expect evasion of awkward questions (I cite my 14 questions to Dan Halloran, and the 3-week silence which is symptomatic of ICANN's "closed" and "evasive" governance), expect conflicts of interest, expect widespread disdain. Which of these do we not have already?
 
Joe Sims? Do you believe in democracy and the rights of people to determine their future for themselves? Or do you prefer dictatorship?
 
If you believe people should determine their future for themselves, then why are you opposed to the internet majority determining the future of the Internet for itself (including those policy areas annexed by ICANN)?
 
Richard Henderson
"The Internet for Everyone"   "It's YOUR Internet"


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>