Re: [ga] Re: At-Large Supporting Organization

[Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Thank you for the prompt response.  I am sure that you understand that an 
> Advisory Committee, while providing opportunities for participation...

Were this a labor-relations context, ICANN's captive at-large games could 
possibly be construed as an "unfair labor practice" as defined by 29 USC 
158(a)(2):
 
	It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer -
        ...
        (2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or
      administration of any labor organization or contribute financial
      or other support to it...

ICANN's attempts to create artificial substitutes for actual at-large
bodies are very much akin to the egregious "company union" practices that
were banned by the law mentioned above.

Such "company unions" replaced the actuality of participation with
company-run (analogous to ICANN-"coordinated") bodies.  It was no surprise
that such company unions turned into toadies that slavishly followed the
corporate diktat.  ICANN's sequence of AL*Cs is no different.

> ...  Is there a particular reason why the Board is not amenable to such
> representation for the At-large community?

Oligarchies through the ages have almost always felt that their judgement
was superior to that of the people who are affected by its decisions.  
ICANN is no exception - I have sat in ICANN meetings and listened again
and again to expressions containing unmasked disdain and contempt for the
ability of people to decide what is in their interest.  What I see and
hear from the board in its private forums is quite different than the
NewSpeak that comes forth from ICANN's organs of public "information."

ICANN has a symbiotic relationship with those who provide it with money or
support (the RIRs, the incumbants and aspirants of the DNS
registry/registrar system, and intellectual property interests) and its
law firm.  These bodies have a vested interest in an expansive ICANN.  
And ICANN has a vested interested in their continued good will.  The 
public is not allowed to be part of this equilibrium.

In addition, my initial examination of ICANN's records shows an
organization with a management system that is deeply flawed, with few
competencies, and with weak conceptions of ethical and legal obligations.  
This makes ICANN highly susceptable to the influence of those upon whom it
depends for money and political support.

It is not surprising, therefore, that ICANN is so afraid, indeed 
terrified, of the light that would shine on it were the public to be 
truly empowered within ICANN.

ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest.  ICANN's repudiation of 
the principles of public accountability and public oversight are not 
consistent with that purpose.

		--karl--







--
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