[ncdnhc-discuss] Names council candidates

[Kent Crispin]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 10:16:20AM +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
> > > You are right except that at least less than half of at large board
> > > members would certainly make ICANN less accountable.
> > -
> > I do not agree. All SO elected directors are really elected and
> > accountable. I do not feel that it is the case today for the at-large
> > elected ones, since the atlarge is completely undefined and unorganized.
> > My point is not to argue about figures (6 or 9 for instance), but to be
> > sure about the real accountability. To me, the ALSC goes in the right
> > direction and answer all 5 questions which he had to answer.
> 
> I cannot see what you disagree. 
> Do you agree or not that less than half of at large board members would
> make ICANN less accountable even when there is some natural link or
> channel between elected at large board members and the voting base as you
> argued? 

ALL board members, with the exception of the original board, are elected
and accountable, and are CURRENTLY in the majority.  There were 9 
original directors, there are 19 now, only 4 of the 19 are from that 
original 9.  ELECTED directors completely control the board.

> Is what you mean that the number of board members has noting to do
> with accountability even when at large board members have clear and
> obvious their voting base?

There is absolutely nothing clear or obvious about the voting base of 
the At-Large directors.  You don't know anything at all about them; you 
do know a great deal more about the voting base of the SO-elected 
directors. 

> Then, do you think any number of at large board
> members could make ICANN accountable?

Nope.  At-large directors are LESS accountable than SO elected 
directors.  The at-large directors were elected by an electorate that 
almost certainly simply doesn't understand what is going on.

[...]

> Are you assuming that individuals could be commercial?

Where have you been? Of course individuals can be commercial.  There is
absolutely no question about it. 

> Do you have the concept of commercial individual? So, you are thinking
> that it is naive to think that individuals and non commercial are
> identical? This is very weird idea. At large members are simply individual
> users who are regarded as consumer or customer. I have never heard such
> words as commercial consumer or commercial customer.

Ever heard of "individual professional"? How about individual doctors
and individual lawyers and individual computer consultants and
individual artists and individual web designers?

In fact Songbird hosts web sites for individuals, and the majority of 
them are highly commercial.  Even some apparently non-commercial sites 
have a commercial side -- for example, a poet who is selling a book of 
children's poems.


> > See remark above. I certainly do not agree with this last statement.
> > There is to much opposition between commercial vs non commercial in all
> > ICANN debates. This is biaising the whole discussion in everything. I am
> > afraid that it is also going to biais the current DNSO director election.
> 
> If it is called as bias(?), it is indispendable bias.
> Why are you afraid of that? As one consumer, I am not afraid of arguing
> my rights against commercial bias.

You are in a tiny minority, then.  *Most* people have to work for a 
living at some commercial endeavor or another.  

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent at songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain