[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN committee recommends voting restrictions,fewer At-Large di rectors

[Barbara Simons]

Dear Dave,

We have seen in US politics how genuine special interests,
such as the oil industry, refer to other groups, such as those
that are trying to protect the environment, as "special interests",
even if those "special interests" consist of people who are devoting
their time and frequently their money with no possible financial gain.
These politics involve equating in the public mind environmentalists,
who are working for the long term public good, with those who are
pushing legislation because they will profit financially.

Dave, I know you are far too honorable a man to attempt
to use such a tactic when discussing ICANN.  Surely, you
would not suggest that the public is a special interest, nor
would you argue that the at-large does not represents the public.

As far as public interest goes, ICANN expected 5-10K
people to register to vote in the last election, and they
were overwhelmed when 158K actually succeeded in
registering, in spite of the fact that many people were
unable to do so because of ICANN's lack of preparation.
So, I am having some trouble understanding your claim
that there is little public interest.  But if you still feel that there
is a problem with public interest in ICANN, perhaps you will
join me in urging the ICANN staff to be more supportive of
reaching out to the public.

Finally, I am a bit mystified as to where you have gotten the
idea that I am anti-business, especially given that I have spent
eighteen years working at IBM.  I'm am saddened to think
that using the same logic you might view me as a misanthrope
because I am critical of some individuals.

Barbara

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 05:42 PM 8/28/2001, Barbara Simons wrote:
> >The public is NOT another special interest group!
>
> Is it not interesting how each group always says that about itself?
>
> It is just that sort of closed-minded trivialization, of the fact that
> activities like these involve diverse interests, that makes the effort
> counter-productive.
>
> And, by the way, as the self-righteous assertions about special position
> for "the public" are made, it would be helpful to ask why "the public" is
> showing such a small interest in these activities, in spite of considerable
> (negative) press about the topic.  It rather raises a question about the
> foundation of claims made by those who purport to represent "the public".
>
> >To clarify what I said in my earlier posting (sorry for
> >the extra email), if the public is relegated to a minority
> >position on the Board, it will in essence be disenfranchised.
>
> I'm sorry, Barbara. I must have missed your response to my query about the
> examples of a better model.  One that demonstrates better performance?
>
> >Yes, Dave, it is the real world
> >of decision making - where money and power are all that matter.
>
> It's a conspiracy, Barbara.
>
> d/
>
> ps.  As you tout such anti-business attitudes, you might ponder where the
> funding for the ACM comes from.  Don't you feel just a little bit, well,
> inconsistent?
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464