<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] At large presentation
Jamie,
If only you could clone yourself a few million times, maybe your voice
would be a force. It's a shame that people seem to have given up due to
the obvious futility of the individual's fight to exist in the ICANN
framework.
Personally, I was proud of you and would like to thank you for
attempting to put a voice to the frustrations of most of us in the user
community.
Leah
On 26 Jun 2002, at 3:38, James Love wrote:
> I'm in the GA, and Denise, Esther, Vittorio, and Izumi Aizu and on the panel
> to present a report on the at large organizing effort.
>
> Denise:
> In Accra, the board has called for bottom up at large "structures." She
> reports $17k in contributions for at-large.org, and asks for more money.
> 16 "at large structures" have been created or designated by the effort. The
> implication is that all the groups who are listed on the at-large.org web
> page are on board with this new approach. There is some talk of creating a
> "structured role" in policy making, and input into the board decisions.
> She ends with a slide that says that greater involvement of governments and
> establishment of 'meaningful' participation by individuals are not
> necessarily mutually exclusive. Esther then jumped in to say some people
> didn't support a greater role by governments.
>
> Izumi Aizu and Vittorio Bertola appeared on the pane with Esther and Denise,
> and were generally supportive of the presentation by Esther or Denise.
>
> Esther made a confident (almost smug) presentation. She said "I hope you
> walk away with an appreciation by the huge amount of progress that has been
> made." Earlier the at large was an "incoherent" idea, now it is something
> with .5 million people engaged through the 16 groups, and a structure in
> place to provide input. If ICANN becomes government controlled, it will
> become too powerful. It is really important that ICANN be controlled by
> users, by the participants, than by governments.
>
> I just had my time at the mike from the floor... and went through the
> basics... The proposal for "at large structures" eliminates any votes by
> individuals. The White Paper gave individuals 8 of 19 board seats. In
> Cairo this was reduced to 5. In Accra, the 5 elected seats were phased out,
> but there was some hope that there would be an at large SO with maybe 3
> seats on the board. Now you have an at large "structure" that at best can
> place 1 member on a 19 member nominating committee for some board seats, and
> no one can explain even how that 1 person is selected. To present this as a
> success for enhancing the power of individual internet users is absurd. I
> said it was not true, as implied by Denise Michel's presentation, that the
> groups listed as part of the at-large.org effort support the elimination of
> elections for ICANN board members or the proposals in the blueprint to
> dismantle democratic mechanisms (http://www.at-large.org/at-large-members.htm).
>
> Denise said that CPSR was in fact supportive of the new "at large
> structures" approach, and had joined in submissions on this to the ICANN
> reform. I'll let Andy Oram and Hans Klein respond with any helpful
> clarificatons on this point.
>
> This was followed by a presentation on the Canadian Internet Registration
> Authority (CIRA), which recently concluded its elections. Alexander
> Svensson then asked a series of good questions, asking about how the elected
> members addressed issues of mission creep, why participation has declined in
> elections, and about "outreach" in the elections. I asked if there was
> fraud? And also, how much does it cost to audit the elections? The CIRA
> rep said that mission creep had not been a problem, the board had kept
> things fairly narrow, and that many people seemed satified with the CIRA
> operation, and were just didn't feel the need to be bother as long as things
> were working ok. The last CIRA election had about 1,000 voters. The CIRA
> has an external audit function, which ended up questioning about 100 votes,
> and ended up rejecting about 10. The cost of the audit and verification
> proceedure was about $3,000 for the June 2002 election.
>
>
>
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|