[ga] The "Precondition" Argument for an Individuals Constituency

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:05:28 -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote:
>As I have communicated before, in person in GA meetings and on
> this list, I believe that a new constituency should organize itself and
> demonstrate strong representativeness of the community involved and
> then submit its proposal for recognition.  Just because the idea of an
> individuals constituency makes sense to many of us, that is not enough
> to approve it.

> If I was a board member I would want to see evidence of an organization
> that is functioning or at least ready to function and one that can show that
> it represents a reasonable sample of the population it claims to represent.
In
> my opinion that has never happened.

Hi Chuck

In his reply to your post, David Farrar made some compelling observations.
His remarks have led others to comment in a way that may get away from your
point.

What you are saying very clearly, and I agree, is that any new constituency
should organise itself first to be reasonably acceptable to the ICANN Board.

Please don't misunderstand, everybody AGREES with you on that and, except for
an odd fringe lunatic somewhere, they always have.  So what's the problem?

(1)    It's a very difficult task in the special case of individuals.
However, many people have put serious effort into the attempt.  Others, like
myself, have either tried to assist or would be prepared to assist if the game
was fair.

(2)    But there's the rub.  The game's not fair.  Asking people to set up a
constituency for individuals when ICANN has no intention of allowing
participative democracy is a dream.  Those with any sense see that quite well.

So the fact that you are going along with what I am calling the "precondition"
argument indicates that you are either (a) being fooled by the FUD or (b) lack
personal integrity.

I have already said that, in my opinion, (b) does not apply.

Eric Dierker made that implication but I think he was just being careless as
usual.  Ross Wm. Rader can be discounted to some extent because he is a rival
registrar (as pointed out by Patrick Greenwell).  Definitely we should all
avoid such comments in relation to issues which are unrelated to the accused
person's core interest.

In other words, I would accept that you or Ross may be perceived to have a
conflict of interest in relation to matter directly relating to your
employer's business activities.  I would not accept that you should
necessarily be so labeled in relation to more general issues like
"contituencies" or "consensus".

Anyway, back to the point.  Could I please advise you to drop what I am
calling the "precondition" argument.  Should you find this too difficult, you
should move on to the next step and assist in building a foundation acceptable
to ICANN.

Otherwise such precondition arguments are seen as mere hurdles being placed in
the way by those who are determined not to implement the requested structure.

Such a view leads to these nasty "integrity" questions !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html