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

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Kent and others,

On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Kent Crispin wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> It is a simple fact that the at-large does not represent the public. 

I don't agree to your idea but, yeah, to represent the public is not easy
task but worthwhile and needy, then could you suggest what could
represent 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.
> 
> That is largely explained by two factors: 1) the publicity presenting
> ICANN as the "government of the Internet"; and 2) nationalistic
> competition, especially in the asia-pacific region.  The ALSC sent out
> an announcement to every single email address in the at-large database,
> just asking those people if they wanted to be on a list to receive
> announcements.  Of the 76000 people contacted, less than 10% were
> interested enough *just* to be on the announce list (5839, according to
> the draft report).  A total of 59 people bothered to participate in the 
> at-large forum.  The ALSC had an extensive outreach effort; the results 
> were underwhelming, to say the least.

In the process of making public representation, there could be some
unexpected and dirty things mixed up as we all know it. However, your
example is not appropriate as one evidence of your argument. Most people
prefer to use web surfing for getting some information rather than
receiving emails delivered unilaterally. You should understand that to
decide to be on one list is very hard one for most people even when they
want to get some more information. As you pointed out, ICANN related
issues are not so fun or interesting to attact many people, nevertheless,
its impact must be very broad. Therefore, we should further develop our
approaching way in many ways. Accordingly, what you are pointing out is
not the evidence of your argument, but rather paradoxically explains why
those representations are important.


> > So, I am having some trouble understanding your claim
> > that there is little public interest.
> 
> You are having trouble understanding it because you are ignoring obvious
> facts.  The most obvious fact is that those interested in the at-large 
> are *clearly*, by any reasonable definition, a special-interest group.  
> This is, as my brother used to put it, as obvious as the hair on an 
> ugly dog's face, and it takes a most amazing form of doublethink to 
> ignore it.  

Could you explain what kind of special interests are being represented by
at large directors? If possible Take some more concrete examples!


> The "public" simply does not care about DNS policy; to the 
> "public" DNS policy is an extremely obscure, boring, and uninteresting 
> topic. 

I agree. Most people are so. But also you should know that in the term of
at large membership campaign, I happened to meet many people who have some
concern on those issues and worried about some related but unidentified
possible problems and suggested some ideas even though they have no
knowledge about that and what is going on in ICANN. Don't ignore them off.
They are *users*.


Chun Eung Hwi
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667 
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun at peacenet.or.kr   
------------------------------------------------------------