Fwd: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN committee recommends voting restrictions,fewerAt-Large di rectors

[George Sadowsky]

Kent,

You and Dave Crocker could be a lot more effective if you eliminated 
the vitriol from your remarks.   Barbara and others are absolutely 
right on that count.  It may be possible to do good and NOT be 
lonesome.  Try it.

Barbara,

The first quote that Kent takes from the report is a good one.  It's 
certainly consistent with my own view of the quality of 
representation on the Board and the origins of the Board members.  Is 
it possible that the 6-6-6 balance is a good idea?

I'd be curious to know if you agree of disagree with the Committee's 
model of the Internet as a crossroads of developers, providers and 
users.  If you accept that, then it's easy to reconcile yourself to 
the 6-6-6 distribution.  If you don't accept that, why, and what 
alternative model do you propose in its place?

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


>From: Kent Crispin <kent at songbird.com>
>To: discuss at icann-ncc.org
>Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN committee recommends voting 
>Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:54:47 -0700
>
>On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:10:18AM -0700, Barbara Simons wrote:
>>  Unfortunately, Alexandro, some of us won't be in
>>  Montevideo and therefore won't have the opportunity
>>  to discuss the report with the ALSC there.
>>
>>  For my part, I couldn't care less about their reasoning.
>>  The bottom line is that the representatives of the public
>>  can be outvoted on every single issue, especially
>>  bylaw changes.  The reality is that the at-large will be
>>  made politically powerless.
>
>Note the following quote from the draft report:
>
>    Based on our view of ICANN as a balance among developers, providers
>    and users, we would recommend that the At-Large membership select a
>    third of ICANN's Board.  We have found that more narrow interests
>    could seek to influence the ICANN process through all three avenues,
>    but that wider and more public interests can also be found in all
>    three.
>
>It is not surprising that Barbara won't deign to reply to any serious
>disagreement, since statements like her above paragraph are simply
>thoughtless emotional reactions.  Her above paragraph makes the
>completely unrealistic assumption that the interests of the at-large
>directors will be completely aligned, and that the interests of the
>other directors, coming from the SOs, will be completely aligned in the
>opposite direction.  That is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely.
>Moreover, she apparently also suffers from the delusion that the
>at-large directors would somehow represent the "public" (whatever that
>means in this context), and not simply be industry representatives
>elected through manipulation of the votes.
>
>>  Other details, such as the
>>  anti-democratic imposition of a poll tax (how do they plan
>>  to collect it in countries such as Nigeria, Romania, Vietnam,
>>  Honduras, etc?)
>
>To quote again from the paper:
>
>    To help ensure that this approach to At-Large membership is not an
>    impediment to those who want a domain name and want to participate in
>    an ALSO, the ALSC suggests that the ICANN community identify and
>    encourage organizations that could provide appropriate assistance to
>    such users.  We encourage input on this and hope to include specific
>    suggestions and named institutions in our final report.
>
>--
>Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
>kent at songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss