Re: [ga] Particular People

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Alexander,
I am afraid my Frenglish fails me.
What I want is two things:
1. the GA to be represented
2. the Registrants to be represented.

The way things developed the GA may provide Registrants a representation in 
addition to its GA representative. I therefore supported your letter 
because it permitted:
1. the GA to elect its representative
2. the GA to decide if it wants or not to support the Registrants in being 
present. And I would find it absurd if the GA was voting no.

This is what I read when Jonathan and others talk about "a representative 
of the GA" and Jeff talks of "representatives from the GA". If you meant 
otherwise I would totally disagree.

In particular I do not understand why you talk about Dave and Kent? What 
individuals have to do again in this? I am afraid I am lost.

Jefsey


On 15:31 15/12/01, Alexander Svensson said:

>[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

--
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