Fwd: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN committee recommends votingrestrictions,fewerAt-Large directors
Chun Eung Hwi
ehchun at peacenet.or.kr
Thu Aug 30 22:06:34 CEST 2001
Absolutely agree with Barbara,
The number of one third seems to be very attractive and magic number to
the establishment of ICANN and their faithful backers. The explanation or
interpretation of justifying the ratio is simply indispensable rhetoric.
Its real intention is to reduce the ratio of at large directors so as to
make them powerless minority. This has been frequently confirmed by their
words spoken in public or private. Joe Sims - very well know designer of
ICANN structure and organizer of the earlier directors - has already
expressed their mind in this way at Yokohama meeting. His remark shows up
the typical mind and real intention of the mysteriously selected (not
elected) directors, so naturally that of the establishment of ICANN. Newly
devised rationale for justifying the ratio of one third is only the
product of the efforts to realize this ultimate goal. I don't think George
is so naive to believe that the composition of 6-6-6 may have any
reasonable reason other than this purely political (not technical)
intention.
"Sims: Key conceptual point of confusion/misunderstanding/disagreement.
Board’s actions in Cairo were intended to respond to concerns expressed
by the community. Wanted to respond to what the Board thought were
inherent difficulties in electing half of the Board. Hence, the Board said
they’d solve the problem by reducing the number to be elected from half
to a third (5 of 15), then reconsider the question.
(snip)
Simons: Not in Cairo, don’t know precisely what the Bylaws say. But the
community’s view is that there will be nine At Large Directors.
Appreciate the problems. Need to leave nine in the Bylaws to keep public
confidence. "
Excerpts from Scribe's Notes of Yokohama Public Forum
(http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/scribe-icann-071500.html)
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
------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Barbara Simons wrote:
> Dear George,
>
> You appear to have picked up on Kent's statement:
> "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."
>
> I'm sure that everyone reading that posting realized that it was
> insulting. What they may not have picked up, especially the
> non-US folks on this list, was that for most Americans a phrase
> like "emotional reactions" is code that has been used for years
> to put down women.
>
> Since Kent clearly is not interested in holding a rational debate
> on issues, I can conclude only that his goal is to make this list
> unusable by picking fights with individuals and filling up everyone's
> inboxes with copies of nasty emails. If someone doesn't respond
> at first, he tries harder to push their buttons until either they refuse
> to read his email or develop the discipline to refrain from responding
> to insults, no matter how offensive.
>
> I appreciate your effort to add civility to this list, but quite frankly
> I don't expect that it will work.
>
> As far as the proposed 6-6-6 split goes, the fact is that the 12 who
> do not represent the at-large are representing specific interests.
> Why should the developers and the providers *each* have as many
> seats as the public? Can you imagine someone proposing that the
> seats in the US Congress should be divided so that the public gets
> to elect 1/3, R&D institutions get 1/3, and manufacturers get 1/3?
> It would be laughed out of the room.
>
> I may not respond to your response for several days, not because
> of any rudeness on your part, but because the rest of my life is making
> some major demands on my time.
>
> Regards,
> Barbara
>
> George Sadowsky wrote:
>
> > 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. I suggest that you and Dave 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list