Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Richard, and all,

This is Melvin Milktoast.
Someone needs to get down and dirty with these folks.
e

Richard Henderson wrote:

> OK, Esther, but mind you...
>
> ICANN's track record is to *say* and *encourage* all kinds of things, but at
> any stage, the Board just moves the goalposts!
>
> We polled our own "bottom up" At Large group (as you know)... 69% said they
> didn't trust ICANN's At Large proposals, as opposed to 19% who said they
> did; and you yourself (as you no doubt know with wry amusement) came 293rd
> out of 295, in a poll of who people trusted to promote the At Large, which
> was only a little worse than Denise who came 290th!
>
> And by a margin of more than 3 to 1, the members voted in favour of creating
> the At Large regional organisations independently and outside of ICANN. Only
> 1 in 5 wanted the ICANN RALOs.
>
> The implications here are pretty clear.
>
> Our majority view (a) publicly refutes the RALOs
> (b) is likely to refuse to participate in them
>
> Why? Because they suspect the Esther 'n' Denise initiative of being a
> facade, which will only legitimise the Board's coup and its expulsion of the
> At Large's elected representatives.
>
> People aren't *that* stupid, Esther!
>
> Regards
>
> Richard H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>
> To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> Cc: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>; Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>;
> <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications
>
> > Richard -
> >
> > Your own words create a challenge:  Build a bottom-up, democratic,
> > *effective* organization, and I am sure it will be recognized by ICANN and
> > welcomed into a RALO where, yes, we (the ALAC) want the RALOs to define
> > their own rules.  (I wanted to say "I assure you" but I cannot, because I
> > don't speak for ICANN and neither does Denise. Nor do we presume to speak
> > for millions of users.)  The RALO structures and their rules are not yet
> > formed, and the ALAC is collecting feedback.
> >
> > The world (a small part of it, anyway!) is waiting.
> >
> > Esther
> >
> >
> > At 08:49 AM 2/24/2003, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > >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
> >
> >
> >
> > Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> > chairman, EDventure Holdings
> > writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> > edyson@edventure.com
> > 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> > New York, NY 10011 USA
> > http://www.edventure.com
> >
> > The conversation continues..... at
> > http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
> >
> > PC Forum 2003 - March 23 to 25, Phoenix
> > Who? what? where? Data comes alive!
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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