RE: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

["Jonathan Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>]

Danny,
First let me thank you for the tone of your letter.It appears that my
earlier comments ,which did contain some 'frustration'caused a flurry of
rhetoric,which maybe I deserved...a little.There is the perception,however,
in some circles ,that "At-Large" is a topic of such emotion that sensible
debate has been made very difficult.So many accusations and insults have
been hurled and so few people (always the same few people) have really come
forward to discuss it.While I KNOW I am treading on sensitive ground,it is
not unnoticed that most of those speakers are American.You have an American
view of the world,which is obviously fine and very important...but not
'exclusive'.The USG decided ICANN would be International.  As long as it is
their judgement that is the correct way to go, then the Board will have a
strong International Flavour which may result ,from time to time ,in
decisions which dont sit as well with US Citizens who have a very strong
sense of what is right,"Constitutional",Fair etc.The United States ,in my
opinion ,is clearly one of the greatest (if not THE greatest ) Countries and
''ideas'' ..ever to exist.I am very proud to call Amreica a friend. But<
friends should tell each other ,(kindly) what they think.I think the Balance
required ,is in part ,that of those with deeply held convictions in the US
to understand there are other views on what is fair and reasonable ...and
some of them just might be ..correct... even if they dont meet the US test
for fair or constitutional.
All this being said. I and several other Board Members STRONGLY support the
Direct On-Line Election of At- Large Members to the Board of ICANN so soon
as it can be acheived fairly!.....This is not a 'dead horse'
At Large representation on the Board is essential for the Board to get a
balanced view of the community which includes millions of ordinary users who
have no "corporate" or Legal or Business connections to ICANN or the
internet.I can not think of any significant decision of the Board where this
was not raised and discussed and considered and MANY times factored into the
decision.That is the simple truth.You may not agree with the decisions ,or
feel the representation of the At -Large position was not clear enough or
strong enough ...but that it was not heard ,listened to and acted upon
regularly is simply not so.Whatever we are ,from wherever we come ..we are
all private citizens with family and a love of freedom and justice.We may
express it differently and we may have to compromise sometimes as much as it
galls but we are moving forward in a manner which I believe (my opinion) is
the best we can do ''in the circumstances imposed by Reality'', in the best
interests of the Internet Community and which will within a reasonable time
frame,probably result in some direct on-line elections that are freer from
capture and unhealthy national competition that will bring to the Board At
Large Members that meet "YOUR" requirements.
 There ''are ''and ''will be'' a significant number of Board  Members who
will be At Large.They will be ''''appointed ''and it is there that the
question/issue needs to be debated. Who should decide who is an At Large
Board Member and How should they reach the Board.For now it is the wisdom of
this Board ,that it should be through a nominating Ctee.,..lets see how it
works> Are the candidates good ones..do they fairly represent a cross
section of the International At Large Community.Are they effective Board
Members getting across the important issues and points of view of that
diverse community. Then we can see what should be done.
I come from a country where the right for citizens to directly elect their
personal representatives is strongly held BUT ICANN is NOT a Government.It
"may" not be the best way for a Board to be peopled and even the Best way to
see At Large at the Table.I think the Board has an open mind on the Question
..certainly I do! As long as I have a Board seat I will try my best to
listen to ALL points of view.
I guess sometimes we both feel like we are banging our heads against a stone
wall and just simply NOT being heard...maybe its partly true..but I know
many (most I think) Board members care about their decisions and their
effect.They try very hard to look at the competing interests and often
modify decisions based on the input from a constituency Including At-Large.
I have no direct or indirect financial or personal interest in ICANN.I dont
get paid.I DONT get business out of it (and havent tried) and Ive seen no
plans to build a statue of me on Parliament Hill! Most of the Board Members
are in the same Boat.Try to keep that in mind,when you are feeling
frustrated.Im always willing to talk.. but not to be insulted or 'suckered'
which has happened...so ...lets talk nicely
regards
Jonathan
PS I understand

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:56 PM
To: jcohen@shapirocohen.com; vinton.g.cerf@WCOM.COM;
apisan@servidor.unam.mx; Amadeu@nominalia.com; karl@CaveBear.com;
k13@nikhef.nl; ivanmc@akwan.com.br; lyman@acm.org;
f.fitzsimmons@att.net; mkatoh@mkatoh.net; hans@icann.org;
shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr; lynn@icann.org; andy@ccc.de;
junsec@wide.ad.jp; quaynor@ghana.com; helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de;
linda@icann.org; nvictory@ntia.doc.gov; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its
proposals..."


Jon,

I respect your call for "balance" and some decent debate.  To that end, I
would like to offer you my perspective as a volunteer that like yourself has
also participated in the ICANN process at considerable personal cost in
time,
energy, and money.

There was a time when the Internet community expected to see nine At-large
directors on the Board.  Some of us were able to comprehend the rationale to
reduce this number to five.  But now after several year's worth of
discussion, the number has been reduced to Zero.  If you were in our shoes,
you would assuredly think that the pendulum has swung way too far in the
wrong direction.  While others are entitled to representation and are able
to
elect their own directors onto the Board, the At-large community is now
being
denied this opportunity -- simply put, this is not in keeping with the
spirit
of fairness that ICANN seeks to promote as a core value.  The concept of
"balance" would dictate at least some degree of representation for the
At-Large.

I, for one, am prepared to accept and make concessions.  While (9) is the
magic number for me, and (0) is the magic number for the Board, somewhere in
that range should be a number that reasonable people can agree upon... it is
time to end this unnecessary posturing and arrive at a solution that no one
will truly like, but that everyone can live with.

Zero representatives for the At-large is not a "reasonable" proposition --
you can't expect us to accept that scenario without ongoing never-ending
acrimony.  For ICANN to function well it needs to resolve this issue
amicably
so that we can all return to a focus on the day-to-day problems that require
our full-time attention.  As a reasonable man, would you be willing to come
back to the table and offer up another proposal that at least provides for
some degree of representation for the At-Large?  Feel free to ask for
concessions on our part as well.

Best wishes,
Danny


--
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