Re: [ga] Particular People

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

[I still encourage people to endorse the letter to the
Chair -- http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03694.html]

Danny,

I'm afraid you are mixing the meanings of *participating*
and *representing* to a point where you think you are 
advocating inclusiveness but instead are misrepresenting 
what the GA wants.

We agree that minorities have to be protected. They
should have the right to participate, including
meaningful chances to be heard, elected etc. And I think
the chances of such minorities -- even "one-person
minorities" -- of getting heard are quite big on the GA 
list (unless they grossly violate the list rules).

Is there a dominating majority advocating a single
opinion in the GA? Methinks not. We have people who are
highly critical of ICANN and want it to be replaced
for a variety of reasons. We have people who think 
ICANN is the lesser evil and want to improve it,
under certain conditions. Others see ICANN as victim
of unjustified attacks. Some emphasize the U.S. aspect,
others the international aspect. Additionally, there
are people focussing on technical, social, political
or economic issues. The GA is probably the most
heterogenous of all parts of ICANN (except At Large
which is today only visible in its choice of directors).

While everyone has the right to participate (provided
he or she respects acceptable rules), nobody has the
right to represent the GA unless properly elected. This 
is *not* a form of discrimination. I'm offended to be
implicitly compared to people denying "a voice" to women, 
blacks and homosexuals. I'm not denying anyone a *voice*. 
I *am* denying all three candidates an automatic right to 
*representation*, because that makes a difference!

You prefer Working Groups to Task Forces -- fine and
agreed. But as long as there are TF seats to be filled
by the GA, the GA should select the representatives
and not the GA Chair by making midway changes to the vote.
If the other two candidates had been e.g. Kent Crispin 
and Dave Crocker and you had still stuck to your
automatic representation by virtue of candidacy and
sent them to the Task Force, I would certainly have had
respect for your consequent application of that approach.
But I would still think that it was wrong.

Regards,
/// Alexander (last posting on this topic)


Danny Younger wrote on 14.12.01, 11:26:48:
> Alexander Svensson, in citing the approach advocated by Jonathan Weinberg,
> argues that this option gives a  majority of the GA the ability to say that
> it doesn't want "particular people" representing it.
>
> For more than the last six months the Names Council has made it clear that
> they do not want "particular people" (the GA) to participate in open working
> groups.  They believe that they have the right to decide as a majority that
> they can discriminate against the membership of this Assembly and to take
> procedural steps to limit the participation of those undesirables that would
> otherwise be free to openly participate in the work of the DNSO.   I have
> steadfastly argued that such an approach disenfranchises our membership and
> contravenes the spirit of our Bylaws.
>
> Our Bylaws require that we shall operate consistent with procedures designed
> to ensure fairness.  Denying "particular people" their right to fully
> participate in the ICANN process is contrary to our founding principles.
>
> Accordingly, I will not support the approach advocated by Alex Svensson.
>
> In the history of our planet we have noted many attempts to deny a voice to
> "particular people":  women, blacks, homosexuals (most of whom, as activists,
> were viewed by the majority as kooks, trouble-makers or ranting lunatics).
> Within democratic institutions, the majority has long believed that it has a
> right to discriminate against the minority -- but ICANN, as we know, is not a
> democratic institution, it is a consensus-based organization in which every
> voice, no matter how shrill or annoying, is guaranteed the opportunity to
> fair participate.
>
> Three members of our Assembly have come forward expressing an interest in
> doing a job that nobody else was willing to do.  I do not wish to deny them
> that opportunity just because a majority that was unwilling to do that job
> thinks that it has a right to discriminate against them.
>
> I extend to the Assembly the opportunity to discuss and debate this matter
> further.  I will notify the Secretariat of a final decision on Monday.

--
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