[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] Constituency Meeting in the morning.

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Alejandro,
What ever will be reported by the ALSC reality will eventually take over. 
There is no mystery: ICANN has disappointed the @large voters. So we will 
not have millions of people rushing to the next @large election. Without 
efforts by governments and large corporations we would probably not have 
more that a few thousands.

So the real issue is capture and fraud. The second issue are the endless 
disputes about the nature, representativity and legitimacy of the @large. 
The third issue is the suspicion about the @large elected Directors.

Why not once for all to get real?

1. @large are the people individually motivated by the Internet governance. 
This is you, me, Dave, YJ Park etc.... We know them, we do not need to 
spend much money for them to vote. Anyone who wants to join can do it for 
free and participate all the year long. All these people have some 
competence, provide mutual education and are useful to the common effort. 
They already vote indirectly to the Board via the SOs (there should be a GA 
in each SO). So they are not that dangerous. They even have a name "the 
ICANN Community" (Stuart Lynn tries to use it for his coff breaks with 
Louis and Joe).

2. The interest is that this is a permanent process and participation to 
the real life of the ICANN.  Why to reinvent the wheel and create absurd 
competition between ourselves and ourselves?

3. The entire issue only boils down to a very usual constructional stuff: 
half of the Directors elected indirectly by Members colleges, half elected 
directly by the general Member assembly.One delegated by right. No need to 
waste time, money and resources on such a trivia.

We want the ICANN to keep cheap, simple and to achieve a few things. May be 
becoming professional. From time to time, it would be mentally refreshing 
if the ICANN tried not to fail and was doing the things as everyone would 
expect it to do, ... and suceeded.  Don't you think?

Jefsey

On 13:45 16/10/01, Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM said:
>Hi!
>
>it would help enormously if we could know how far apart the positions
>regarding the ALSC report still are, and what arguments for or against
>subsist or have changed. In this respect could someone from the NAIS
>study, member of the NCDNHC, or others, state what are at present the main
>divergences, and whether there has been some approximation to find common
>ground?
>
>It would be especially helpful if we had some detailed discussion about
>separate points like:
>
>1. Completely unbounded membership vs. some identification of interest or
>having something at stake in ICANN matters (which means having some
>condition for membership, in turn).
>
>2. If a condition is to be set, which is appropriate? (email address,
>physical address, some form of proof that the person actually exists,
>holding a domain name, etc.)
>
>3. Precautions against possible capture and/or forms of fraud.
>
>4. Structure and internal organization of the at-large membership, if any.
>
>Any others?
>
>Reasoning and not only position statements would be particularly valuable.
>
>Yours,
>
>Alejandro Pisanty