[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Notes from June 25

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jamie and all assembly members,

James Love wrote:

> Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > Actually, I believe this misportrays the meeting (and I
> > was there, too). There were few if any people who thought
> > that calling for elections now seems like a /realistic/
> > approach. ["not in the play" -- ICANN (Bucharest) Blog]
>
>      Ok.   Alexander is right.  Most people in the at-large meeting, were
> not ready to ask the ICANN board to have elections for board members, on the
> grounds that this is not "realistic."

  This not "Realistic" claim has been the Mantra of the ICANN staff
and Board from the beginning.  Hence it is clear that they didn't
know and don't know now what is already being done and has been
over the internet sense 1996.

>  And another way of putting this is
> that they were unwilling to go here, in Bucharest, and even ask for
> elections, in the public meetings.

  This seems to ring more accurate.  But it is again not surprising, as
many of us know, and have known for some time...

>  I asked if they thought elections were a
> sound thing (a good thing) from a practical and policy perspective, of if
> the decision to abandon elections was only about not challenging the board.
>    It seemed to be mostly about not challenging the board, but with Esther,
> it seemed a bit of both.
>
> > Actually, since the Blueprint does hardly mention the
> > At Large, we were not discussing the official ICANN
> > "reform" version of the at large. We were discussing
> > how At Large can *become* a part of ICANN.
>
>        Actually, the Blueprint *and* at-large.org has a particular view of
> how the at-large will function.  It will be a sham consultation process run
> by the ICANN staff, with zero voting power and zero voting mechanisms.  What
>   do you think its future is?

  It's future is either relatively short, or it is just going to end up being a
toy
for the staff to play with to give an impression of being open and
transparent while all the while doing whatever they choose regardless
of the stakeholders/users desires...  It's the old political shell game.
Many of us are well aware and know how this game is played,
along with it's many variations...

>
>
> >>Esther went on about
> >>how unpopular elections and were in Asia and parts of
> >>Latin America, and how little support there was for
> >>elections among the non US members of the ICANN board.
> >
> >
> > Actually, if I remember correctly, she was not talking
> > about the non US members of the ICANN Board and she
> > was talking about undemocratic, manipulated elections.
>
>      She said both.  She said that many non-US members of the board were
> afraid of undemocratic, manipulated elections, so we just skip the elections
> I guess.

  She is dead wrong of course.  I would bet that she could not show
any substantial evidence to support this statement/perception.  Our
attending members waited to see if she would.  Well, they are still
waiting...  So am I...

> What she did not say and what is the bigger problem is that board
> members don't want a legitimate election process that elects people they
> don't like.   That is the real problem, and she knows it.

  Yes Esther knows it, and shares that position, and always has...

>
>
> >>At one point I said "look, in the White Paper,
> >>individuals were going to have 8 of 19 board seats.  In
> >>Cairo this was reduced to 5 elected members.  Then
> >>there was talk after Accra of having an at large as a
> >>supporting organization, with 3 board members.   Now in
> >>the blueprint document, they will have 1 of 19 members
> >>of a nominating committee.  Can you tell me how that 1
> >>member will be chosen?"  At this point, Dyson told me I
> >>should stop criticizing people,
> >
> >
> > Actually, she and several others said that you should stop
> > criticizing those people who haven't written the proposals
> > you are criticizing.
>
>       Actually, she and several of the icannatlarge.com panel members said I
> shouldn't criticize anything.  She did everything she could to stop any
> debate over whether or not the decision to eliminate the elections was a bad
> idea, or to discuss any strategy to reverse this decisions.  It wasn't
> "constructive" because anything that doesn't have support on the board isn't
> constructive.

  Typical Esther Dyson...

>
>
> >>I got into a debate with Denise about the value of
> >>pushing for a harder line on a role for the public in
> >>ICANN, mentioning the possibility that the US government
> >>could protect the rights of individuals in the ICANN
> >>process.  Denise told us that she had 20 years of
> >>policy experience, and she knew exactly what was going
> >>to happen.  She said:
> >>The US Senate would do nothing.  The US
> >>House of Representatives would do nothing.  The DoC
> >>would accept a slightly modified MoU in the
> >>fall, and the ICANN board would adopt the
> >>blueprint, without elections, in Shanghai.
> >
> >
> > Actually, that's what she said would happen if all you
> > did was complain. (I know that's not all you do -- you
> > really seem to believe that the US Government will
> > intervene to help you, and e.g. I disagree.) The comments
> > with respect to Denise Michel's experience with policy-making
> > came in response to your statement that maybe we all
> > (present at the meeting) didn't have /your/ policy
> > experience.
>
>      Actually, that is what she said will happen, regardless of what we do.
>   Denise and Esther were giving us this "resistance is futile" borg talk,
> and I think this is stupid.

  It is, and has been stupid sense around '99...

>  The US Congress is sending out letters
> attacking ICANN and NTIA is sending out all sorts of mixed signals.   Look,
> if you don't want to have the US government rebid the contract (something
> your own GA motion called for by the way), tell me what your smart idea is.
>   Plead with the ICANN board to be nice?   Get the EU off its butt to do
> something?   Create an alternative to ICANN?   Is resistance futile?   Is
> ICANN good enough for you?

  ICANN is not good enough by far.  Resistance is not futile but seemingly
very necessary.  A rebid still seems to be at least one, and maybe
the best, viable alternative.  The EU will do what is best for the EU.
That should not be surprising nor concerning.  Pleading with ICANN
has already been tried on a number of occasions.  It didn't and hasn't
lead to any success with respect to serious issues..

>
>
> > Last posting on this, promised.
>
>      Ok.  What is your opinion on elections?  Do you agree that zero
> elections is a good thing?   Now is the time to be clear on these issues.

  Elections are a must.  An At-Large is a must, where the At-Large
elects at least 51% of all ICANN BOD members, and that non-domain
name holders have the equal opportunity to vote and become full
ICANN At-Large BoD members.

>
>
> --
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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