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

[Milton Mueller]

Oh, I agree that we should listen to Alejandro. Often
his comments and actions are constructive. What I said precisely was
to ignore his repeated attempts to deny the existence of
widespread consensus on issues within the constituency;
e.g., on UDRP, resolution procedures, .ORG, @large, etc.

I don't know why he does this, but he does it repeatedly.
We can discuss an issue for months, vote on it twice,
and have entirely lopsided results, and for some reason
Alej will still claim that we haven't discussed it enough or
that there is no consensus on it.

The B&C constituency, on the other hand, can select their
NC members without a vote, issue "position statements"
that have never been discussed on their list, without 
attracting any negative comment from the Board.

>>> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin at law.miami.edu> 08/29/01 01:19PM >>>
I don't entirely agree with Milton here.  I think it is very useful to
hear what Alejandro has to say, especially when I disagree with it.  
Although I don't think his views are particularly in tune with the rough
consensus of this group, they are quite often in tune with the
establishment ICANN view, and it's always healthy to be reminded of the
views held by those to whom our often ignored remonstrances are addressed.
And it makes sense to engage those views, particularly since he is one of
the few powerful ICANN officials who even bothers to take part in mailing
lists, for which I think he deserves to be praised, not slammed.

Everyone has a right to speak.  It's equally true, of course, that no one
except perhaps officials has a duty to listen.  I like many others have
killfiles, which automatically delete mail from (or in some cases even
cc'd to) certain people. But Alejandro is certainly not one of those
people.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Chun is absolutely correct. 
> 
> Every time we have a vote, whether on line or in person, the
> support of the members of this constituency for greater
> representation is overwhelmingly supported, whether in
> the context of the at-large or the new individuals' 
> constituency.
> 
> I appeal to the REAL members of the NCDNHC on this list not
> to bother to respond or argue with Crocker or Crispin and to 
> ignore the "denial" tactics of Alejandro. It is really a waste of
> time. They are not interested in exchanging ideas, only in
> obstructing our work. Don't encourage them.
> 
> >>> Chun Eung Hwi <ehchun at peacenet.or.kr> 08/29/01 05:30AM >>>
> Dear Alejandro Pisanty and others,
> 
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM wrote:
> 
> > As for consensus in the constituency I beg to differ. This has been a
> > divisive issue here and approached with more preestablished views than
> > reasoning up to now.
> 
> Fact is fact. Please refer to "Resolution on By-Law changes on board
> elections" which was adopted in Yokohama.  
> (http://ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org/docs/resolution/bylaw.html) If you don't
> acknowledge this consensus, what should be the base for our discussion?
> What's constituency? If we want to make more constructive discussion, we
> should respect for our past decisions. Of course, there could be always
> different ideas among people. However, consensus is consensus and personal
> idea is personal idea.
> 
>  
> > As a final note, may I remark that I hope the constituency, which has been
> > reduced to a third by the magic wand of changing the list to a new server,
> > can discuss this issue *and* the .org which was supposed to be closest to
> > our hearts not so long ago. Which maybe defies explanation and maybe not.
> 
> Alejandro, it is not magic. It was decided by members. Due to the
> protection of privacy, many members refused automatic registration to the
> discussion list, so voluntary registration was chosen. And we don't know
> how many people have left from this list in the transition process because
> we didn't know the exact subscribers' list of the old list - I requested
> to get it many times, it was not realised.
> Anyway, your suggestion is good, I also agree to focus those two issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 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   
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm 
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm 
                 -->It's very hot and humid here.<--