Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

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

You're exactly right, Joanna.

ICANN could have written in one-person-one-vote to their RALOs as a
fundamental democratic condition, but they have chosen not to.

Tell me (I address Denise) : if the first act of the RALOs is to demand (a)
one-person-one-vote (b) the right of the RALOs to choose their own leaders
and spokesperson and policies and ways of working... will ICANN accede?

Who is actually running the RALOs: individual internet users or the ICANN
establishment?

If ICANN genuinely wants internet users represented, then clearly each
internet user should be equally represented, through their own vote and
their own right to participate. If ICANN genuinely wants a "bottom up"
process, why do they construct a process which is dependent on nominations,
unelected delegates, and rules which they (ICANN) impose?

This is not to me the "At Large".

This is to me, ICANN creating another process which it can control.

Surely, elected representatives of the At Large on the Board with voting
rights was a far more effective way of giving Internet Users power to
influence the way the DNS is administered. One person one vote is far more
credible.

Why wasn't this fundamental democratic principle written into the ICANN
structure?

Why does the constituency representing hundreds of millions of users get
about the same weighting (but very much less influence) as about 150
registrars who are basically exploiting a supply conduit for their own
profit (which I don't blame them for - everyone tries to make a living - but
why do they get so much disproportionate influence over a commodity which
belongs to hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

The bottom line is that, ultimately, democracy and one member one vote,
implemented right up to Board level, would sweep away the power clique that
seeks to exploit its position for narrow vested interest.

That is why the ICANN establishment had to EXPEL the elected Board members
who represented the huge majority. That's why the ALAC was initiated, to
minimise and contain the influence of the vast user constituency.

What doesn't the ICANN Board understand about the word:

DEMOCRACY ?

yrs,

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications


> > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu.org]
> > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:44:54 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >"Any RALO must through its at-large
> > >          structures or through direct membership, be open for
> > >          participation of all individual Internet users who are
> > >          citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
> > >          Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI)."
> > >
> > >Oh that's good. I get to join two RALO's and have a vote in both
> > regions.
> >
> > Better than having a vote in no region (the original language was
> > "citizens *and* residents").
> > --
> > vb.
>
> Vittorio,
> It gets better. As a member of ISOC, I would get another vote to add to my
> other two. Are there any other organizations I can join? (I'd like to have
> as many votes as possible). Whatever happened to the principle of one
person
> one vote, or is that just too much to ask?
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> 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