Re: [ga] Esther Dyson..... - a modest clarification

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Excellent reply, Leah... once again you speak the truth and you home in on
the critical problem... representation, accountability, bottom up
governance.

My comments interspersed below, and thank you, for your intelligent
comments. Come on, Esther, you can do better than this! Can't you? How can
you, or any other ICANN acolyte, satisfactorily answer Leah's points?

----- Original Message -----
From: L. Gallegos <jandl@jandl.com>

> Those who serve on
> the committee are hand picked and have not been elected.

Appalling! I don't believe any of the ALAC appointees were elected by their
own membership. They were put in place by ICANN, with ICANN deciding who is
appropriate to represent the At Large... risible!

> They are not at
> all representative of the at-large

That's true... the most recent poll showed At Large members opposed to
ICANN's structures for the At Large, by a margin of between 3 and 4 to 1.
The members don't even want to *participate* on this sham ALAC.

> and their face to face input has little
> or no meaining to the rest of us other than they ignore the comments made
> by us.

This may well be true.


>Those who "hammer out" policy details do so on their own and even
> those will be ignored.  It's business as usual - typical of ICANN.

Correct. "Top down" appointments, without democratic mandate from the people
they are *supposed* to represent, and why does ICANN have to do what they
say anyway. They don't, because they resist true democratic representation
on their Board... they prefer the EXPULSION of the democratic
representatives of the At Large, and replace them with top-down appointments
made by ICANN not by the At Large.

> ICANN has closed its doors to us
> other than the usual lip service.  Unfortunately, it is you, Esther, who
> continues to spout the lie that working with a committee that has no true
> representation of the at-large stakeholders and that has no decisive voice
> in policy making.  The board has no obligation to act on any "advice"
> given by these sham committees and has already show they will not do so.

Look at ICANN's anti-democratic track record!


>
> If and when ICANN implements true representation of all stakeholders,
> perhaps it could regain the credibility it has lost or never even
> achieved.
>
> Leah

Exactly, Leah. But ICANN is running scared of democratic representation of
the stakeholders. That's why it cast out those who were democratically
elected from its Board. No! It wants to create a "sham" At Large, designed
to "contain" and "control" a group of non-elected appointees, in order to
legitimise their reform coup, and give DoC and the media the pretence of
user participation, without its reality.

After all, Esther, when the At Large members are asked who they trust to
nurture the At large, from a list of 295 names, you came 293rd on the list,
in the opinion of actual At Large participants. A snapshot perhaps, but a
pretty damning indictment. Alas, Esther, you do *NOT* represent the At
Large, and by 4 to 1, the At Large does not trust or accept your phoney At
Large project.

This is nothing personal against Esther, whose intellect (actually) I
respect... but in terms of truth and moral authority, I have to endorse
everything that Leak says here.


Richard H


--
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