[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"
|