Re: [ga] Point of Order

["Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@medea.wz-berlin.de>]

On 8 May 2002 at 16:32, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> I am against the motion, because it be the death of the GA.
> I am against tabling the motion, because by not abiding the rules the Chair 
> will kill the GA.
> 
> The effect is the same, but as explained in a previous message, I am not 
> willing to sanction self killing, but I will sanction killing of others.
> 
> Let the will of the (new forming) majority of the GA (voting registry, not 
> mailing list) prevail: it will be absolutely irrelevant for the matter, as I 
> cannot think for a second that USG will give any credit to a small group, 
> rallied at the last minute.
> It will be relevant, though, to demonstrate that individuals cannot 
> self-organize and produce meaningful results.
> What DNSO NC, ICANN BoD, and many others have argued ever since.

Roberto, you seem to imply that if individuals only behaved properly, the 
board would eventually grant them the rights originally provided in the bylaws. 
That is not how democratic structures are meant to work. Rights and duties 
are usually conceded independent of the individuals' behavior. If a board has 
the power to award or withdraw the rights of participation on the basis of the 
perceived ability to self-organize or produce meaningful results, then there is 
clearly something wrong with regard to the organization's internal power 
balance. 

I do share your opinion that a longer debate on this issue is helpful and 
perhaps even necessary. 
Jeanette


> 
> Incidentally, has anybody thought that ICANN is doing *exactly* what USG is 
> expecting it to do, and therefore there is no whatsoever reason to kill it, 
> if not to create further delays before creating a photocopy of it? I have 
> lived this experience in Italy in the 60's and 70's, when governments failed 
> confidence votes were replaced after long and thorough consultation by ... 
> the same people over again.
> The CEOs and the BoD Chairs of ICANN have been and are all US citizens, 
> whose election/nomination was done with the placet of (if not following 
> direct nomination from) the USG. Why would you think that they are acting 
> not in line with the owner? Moreover, USG has had, and still has, the lever 
> of the power. It could have warned or even stopped ICANN with a phone call, 
> had it wanted. It did not, because ICANN is doing exactly what is supposed 
> to do: slowing down the introduction of new TLDs, not hurting NSI/Verisign, 
> favour IP (not the protocol, the property) and big business versus 
> individuals and small guys, window dressing this with a zest of 
> internationalism, that is to hold meetings also outside the US. Actually, 
> after September 11, better if *all* meetings are held outside the US, in any 
> case this will not affect the center of power, it will be just more dust in 
> our eyes.
> 
> Well, I have my squash partner waiting for me, see you later.
> Roberto
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
> http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> --
> 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