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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Patrick,

The precondition argument was only presented because I felt that it was the
most realistic way an individual constituency would happen under present
conditions.  I fully understand that it is an extremely difficult condition.
If it is impossible, then I would suggest going a totally different
direction as I have said previously: support the direction of an at-large SO
proposed by the ALSC.

I don't think VeriSign is impacted significantly either way with regard to
an individuals constituency.  I know its hard for some to believe, but I was
just trying to be helpful.  I will leave the debate for the rest of you
because I have more than enough to do without this.

Good luck.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:27 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: The "Precondition" Argument for an Individuals Constituency
> 
> 
> 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