[bwg+] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] CYBER-FED No.15: The User Voice in Internet Governance -- ICANNatlarge.org

[todd glassey]

Then sue it in California or US Federal Court, otherwise stop bitching about
what ICANN is doing.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
To: <bwg-n-friends at jetty.net>; "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>
Cc: "NCDNHC" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <bwg-n-friends at jetty.net>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: [bwg+] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] CYBER-FED No.15: The User Voice in
Internet Governance -- ICANNatlarge.org


>
> ICANN is excluding users from its decision-making structures (in violation
> of the terms of privatization of 1998.)
>
> For the user community, it is useful to maintain a "user representative
> organization in exile", so that an authentic user voice can be maintained.
>
> This independent voice can continue to comment on issues and to represent
> user views in relevant forums.
>
> Hans
>
>
>
> At 10:55 AM 10/27/2002 -0800, Barbara Simons wrote:
> >What does it mean for users' collective voice to persist?  It certainly
> >doesn't mean that users have any meaningful input into policy making, let
> >alone meaningful power.  To even suggest otherwise is to play into the
hands
> >of those who claim that ICANN is representing everyone.
> >
> >Why not come out and say that the so-called ICANN reform was a palace
coup
> >that disenfranchised the user community and eliminated any remaining
> >vestiges of democracy within ICANN?  Why pretend otherwise?
> >
> >I would have no problem with the elimination of user input if ICANN would
> >restrict itself to technical issues and not get involved with policy.
But
> >so long as ICANN also makes policy decisions, the lack of user input
means
> >that only the voices of powerful special interests are heard.
> >
> >Barbara
> >
> >On 10/26/02 1:31 PM, "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org> wrote:
> >
> > > ANother view is that icannatlarge.org is completely screwed up right
now,
> > > largely because Hans as acting chair just eliminated any structure to
> > > decision making and just started announcing all sorts of policies on
his
> > > own, without panel approval, and there does not exist anything
remotely
> > > close to best or even ok practices in terms of how the group makes
> > > decisions, and this has lead quickly to several panel members just
> > > announcing their own policies and decision making processes, none of
which
> > > are approved by the group in any formal way.   All of this could be
> > fixed, I
> > > guess, if one wanted to.  But right now it is a mystery how decisions
are
> > > made in the group.
> > >
> > > jamie
> > >
> > >
> > > Hans Klein wrote:
> > >>                      Please forward
> > >>
> > >>  ******************************************************************
> > >>      Cyber-Federalist No. 15         25 October 2002
> >[snip]
> > >>
> > >> ICANN has been a bold experiment in many areas, not least of which is
> > >> giving users a role in Internet policy-making.  However, user
> > >> representation on ICANN's board has been vigorously contested, and
> > >> ICANN's current board seems likely to eliminate it.  Nonetheless,
even
> > >> if users are excluded from ICANN, their collective voice will
persist.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss