<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN committee recommends
voting</title></head><body>
<div>All,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I fail to understand why advocating a careful reading of a
document before discussing it is a denial of anything. I
thought Alejandro's response was a measured, neutral, and sensible
comment.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>True denial is ignoring what Dave Crocker and Kent Crispin are
saying. You may not like the tone they use, or the tactics to
get your attention, but to deny the content of what they say is
extremely shortsighted. Furthermore, it comes from years
of experience working in the Internet community in a number of
different roles. That experience deserves considerably more
respect than this group gives it.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Barbara, I appreciate your intervention, I would agree that the
public interest is not a special interest group, but let's disabuse
ourselves of the myth that the current membership of ICANN, and even
the future membership for a long time to come (if ever), represents
the public interest. The public interest is very difficult to
define. You can, of course, define it by majority vote, but that
assumes adequate and appropriate representation of the relevant subset
of the public, an informed electorate, and a responsible exercise of
choice by their elected representatives. And in this case, the
relevant subset of the population is a concept over which there is
substantial disagreement.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>ICANN is NOT Internet governance; it's Internet administration in
a narrow sense. the majority of Internet administration occurs
in a decentralized manner, along with other coordinating groups such
as NANOG. I think Kent has it exactly right when he says:</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> The "public" simply does
not care about DNS policy; to the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>"public" DNS policy is an
extremely obscure, boring, and uninteresting</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>topic.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Internet administration has both a technical and a policy
component. I care a lot about the policy issues, and in my
current position we're working to help developing countries develop
"good" policy -- policy that allows the Internet
to spread as rapidly as possible in a manner that is accessible,
affordable, and unfiltered. But technical issues ARE
important, and administrative experience based upon that technical
experience is a valuable commodity, while policy based upon ignorance
of technical issues is likely to be fundamentally flawed, I
think that this group does not believe this.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In the IETF, there are compelling reasons to come to rough
consensus on technical issues, and the process works quite well on the
whole. In this arena, there is no compelling reason to come to
consensus; in fact, there appears to be a perception of strength in
continuing to hold positions that are incompatible.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>One might even ask to what extent the composition of this
constituency is in any way representative of the enormously large
global community of organizations that it purports to represent.
The vast, vast majority of not-for-profit organizations, large
and small, are not present. While some may not know of the
constituency, many major organizations do know of it, and they are not
here. They have not chosen to join, which supports Kent's
point. It's not relevant to their concerns.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Whose interests _are_ being served by the discussion on this
listserv? The constituency's?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>George Sadowsky</div>
<div><br></div>
<hr>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 12:40 PM -0400 8/29/01, Milton Mueller wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Chun is absolutely correct.<br>
<br>
Every time we have a vote, whether on line or in person, the<br>
support of the members of this constituency for greater<br>
representation is overwhelmingly supported, whether in<br>
the context of the at-large or the new individuals'<br>
constituency.<br>
<br>
I appeal to the REAL members of the NCDNHC on this list not<br>
to bother to respond or argue with Crocker or Crispin and to<br>
ignore the "denial" tactics of Alejandro. It is really a
waste of<br>
time. They are not interested in exchanging ideas, only
in</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>obstructing our work. Don't encourage
them.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div><br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br
>
<br>
George Sadowsky, Executive
Director <span
></span> 64 Sweet Briar Road<br>
Global Internet Policy
Initiative <span
></span> Stamford, CT 06905-1514<br>
Center for Democracy and
Technology <span
></span> Tel: +1.203.329.3288<br>
1634 I Street,
N.W. <span
></span>
George.Sadowsky@internews.org<br>
Washington, D. C.
20006-4003
http://pws.prserv.net/sadowsky/<br>
Tel:
+1.202.637.9800 <span
></span> <br>
http://www.gipiproject.org/
Voice mail and fax: +1.203.547.6020<br>
</div>
<div>GIPI is a project of Internews & the Center for Democracy &
Technology</div>
</body>
</html>