Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

[kent@songbird.com]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:49:46PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> > >Why not just have the groups directly inerface with ICANN?
> > 
> > let me explain by taking a look at a very different Advisory
> > Committee...
> 
> Please note that "Advisory" means that the advice has no force, no ability 
> to compel.
> 
> That means that an "advisory" body has no ability to hold ICANN to account 
> for its actions.
> 
> And it is accountability to the public that is so completely lacking from 
> ICANN.

How is Microsoft accountable to the public?

> An "advisory" body would be a sham and an insult to the public and its 
> interest in the way that the Internet is run.
> 
> The public requires a way to clearly mandate its views upon ICANN.

How is it that the public mandates its views on Microsoft, a monopoly?
How does the public get oversight over any monopoly?

>  This
> means, at a minimum, the ability to select the majority of people who sit,
> with full powers, on ICANN's decision making organs.
>
> Nothing less is adequate.

Why doesn't the public sit on the "decision making organs" (love that 
phrase) of Microsoft?

[...]

> The public deserves nothing less than the ability to seat, and unseat, a
> majority of the members of ICANN's highest decision-making body.

Why not the same for Microsoft?  Why is it that anti-trust enforcement 
is not sufficient for ICANN?  ICANN's "monopoly" has far, far less 
impact on society than Microft's monopoly.
--
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