[ncdnhc-discuss] Notes from June 25
James Love
james.love at cptech.org
Wed Jun 26 18:13:57 CEST 2002
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Jamie, you have flat-out misrepresented what I said - and what I have
> written. Why don't you look at the record instead of making things up?
>
> For example, here are my suggested amendments (in all-caps) to one
> section of our letter to the board:
>
> ALAC should SELECT [[DELETE appoint]] voting members [[[DELETE
> /liaisons ]]] to
> the Board, AND SHOULD WORK TOWARDS THE GOAL OF ELECTIONS TO SELECT BOARD
> MEMBERS THAT WILL BE FAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE.
Esther, I don't know what "record" you are talking about. I was
reporting on your presentation yesterday in the at-large meeting, and in
another missive, on your presentation in this mornings GA meeting. (I know
you have taken contrary positions in the past.)
If you want to tell the ICANN board in Bucharest (the press and the US DoC)
that ICANN should allow the at-large to vote, to choose its own leaders, and
to elect members of the ICANN board, I look forward to hearing you say this.
Here you have said that at-large members should accept the blueprint
framework, which eliminates these rights, and you have endorsed the
"at-large structures" approach as progress.
In my opinion, the at-large "structures" proposal is a cynical PR device to
make the elimination of voting rights sound like a good thing for
individuals, to distract and undermine real at-large organizing efforts, and
a deliberate effort to confuse people.
Jamie
-----------
* Conducting outreach, identifying individuals/groups worldwide
(individuals, academic institutions, businesses, non-commercial/consumer
groups, and other non-governmental organizations) interested in relevant
Internet user issues and At-Large organizing;
* Managing surveys and discussions on specific relevant issues, as
determined by user indications of interest or ICANN's policy-making activities;
* Identifying common (and conflicting) objectives and interests
relevant to Internet users and ICANN's mission; and
* Establishing mechanisms for coordination and cooperation and policy
development among At-Large structures and with ICANN stakeholders, including
supporting the Board's directive on At-Large, which states that "the Board
Committee on Restructuring, working in conjunction with the President and
staff, is instructed to ensure that their ongoing efforts at crafting a
blueprint for ICANN reform include (a) workable mechanisms and procedures
that enable meaningful opportunities for participation by the full range of
Internet users, including individuals, academic institutions, large and
small businesses, non-commercial entities (including consumer groups), and
other non-governmental organizations, (b) an appropriate role for those
interests in ICANN's coordinating and management structures, and (c)
appropriate mechanisms to minimize disruption during the reform
implementation process."
>
> Esther
>
>
> At 09:01 AM 6/26/2002, James Love wrote:
>
>> Alexander Svensson wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I believe this misportrays the meeting (and I was there,
>>> too). There were few if any people who thought that calling for
>>> elections now seems like a /realistic/
>>> approach. ["not in the play" -- ICANN (Bucharest) Blog]
>>
>>
>> Ok. Alexander is right. Most people in the at-large meeting,
>> were not ready to ask the ICANN board to have elections for board
>> members, on the grounds that this is not "realistic." And another way
>> of putting this is that they were unwilling to go here, in Bucharest,
>> and even ask for elections, in the public meetings. I asked if they
>> thought elections were a sound thing (a good thing) from a practical
>> and policy perspective, of if the decision to abandon elections was
>> only about not challenging the board. It seemed to be mostly about
>> not challenging the board, but with Esther, it seemed a bit of both.
>>
>>
>>> Actually, since the Blueprint does hardly mention the
>>> At Large, we were not discussing the official ICANN
>>> "reform" version of the at large. We were discussing
>>> how At Large can *become* a part of ICANN.
>>
>>
>> Actually, the Blueprint *and* at-large.org has a particular view
>> of how the at-large will function. It will be a sham consultation
>> process run by the ICANN staff, with zero voting power and zero voting
>> mechanisms. What do you think its future is?
>>
>>
>>>> Esther went on about
>>>> how unpopular elections and were in Asia and parts of
>>>> Latin America, and how little support there was for
>>>> elections among the non US members of the ICANN board.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, if I remember correctly, she was not talking
>>> about the non US members of the ICANN Board and she
>>> was talking about undemocratic, manipulated elections.
>>
>>
>> She said both. She said that many non-US members of the board
>> were afraid of undemocratic, manipulated elections, so we just skip
>> the elections I guess. What she did not say and what is the bigger
>> problem is that board members don't want a legitimate election process
>> that elects people they don't like. That is the real problem, and
>> she knows it.
>>
>>
>>>> At one point I said "look, in the White Paper,
>>>> individuals were going to have 8 of 19 board seats. In
>>>> Cairo this was reduced to 5 elected members. Then
>>>> there was talk after Accra of having an at large as a
>>>> supporting organization, with 3 board members. Now in
>>>> the blueprint document, they will have 1 of 19 members
>>>> of a nominating committee. Can you tell me how that 1
>>>> member will be chosen?" At this point, Dyson told me I
>>>> should stop criticizing people,
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, she and several others said that you should stop
>>> criticizing those people who haven't written the proposals
>>> you are criticizing.
>>
>>
>> Actually, she and several of the icannatlarge.com panel members
>> said I shouldn't criticize anything. She did everything she could to
>> stop any debate over whether or not the decision to eliminate the
>> elections was a bad idea, or to discuss any strategy to reverse this
>> decisions. It wasn't "constructive" because anything that doesn't
>> have support on the board isn't constructive.
>>
>>>> I got into a debate with Denise about the value of
>>>> pushing for a harder line on a role for the public in
>>>> ICANN, mentioning the possibility that the US government
>>>> could protect the rights of individuals in the ICANN
>>>> process. Denise told us that she had 20 years of
>>>> policy experience, and she knew exactly what was going
>>>> to happen. She said:
>>>> The US Senate would do nothing. The US
>>>> House of Representatives would do nothing. The DoC
>>>> would accept a slightly modified MoU in the
>>>> fall, and the ICANN board would adopt the
>>>> blueprint, without elections, in Shanghai.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, that's what she said would happen if all you
>>> did was complain. (I know that's not all you do -- you
>>> really seem to believe that the US Government will
>>> intervene to help you, and e.g. I disagree.) The comments with
>>> respect to Denise Michel's experience with policy-making came in
>>> response to your statement that maybe we all (present at the meeting)
>>> didn't have /your/ policy experience.
>>
>>
>> Actually, that is what she said will happen, regardless of what we
>> do. Denise and Esther were giving us this "resistance is futile" borg
>> talk, and I think this is stupid. The US Congress is sending out
>> letters attacking ICANN and NTIA is sending out all sorts of mixed
>> signals. Look, if you don't want to have the US government rebid the
>> contract (something your own GA motion called for by the way), tell me
>> what your smart idea is. Plead with the ICANN board to be nice? Get
>> the EU off its butt to do something? Create an alternative to
>> ICANN? Is resistance futile? Is ICANN good enough for you?
>>
>>
>>> Last posting on this, promised.
>>
>>
>> Ok. What is your opinion on elections? Do you agree that zero
>> elections is a good thing? Now is the time to be clear on these issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------
>> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
>> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love at cptech.org
>> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
>
>
>
> Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> edyson at edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800 -- fax 1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> The conversation continues..... at
> http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
>
>
>
>
>
--
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love at cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list