[NCUC-DISCUSS] Scope creep and renegade was Re: NCUC Statement on PRISM?

Mon Oct 28 15:32:40 CET 2013

You are right, you don't vote for the White House janitor.

But people in the "executive" who are appointed by elected officials have
to follow the direction of the elected officials and other branches of
government where other elected representatives have their duty, like
Congress or Parliament, act as oversight and balance, two important aspects
of Democracy that IMHO we don't have at ICANN.

Also when people start to act in their "individual capacity" (very often
done at ICANN) they lose legitimacy as "representatives."

Being multistakeholder and quasy bottom up does not equal to Democracy.

Regards
Jorge

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Not all democracy involves direct representational democracy in choosing
> each person.
>
> The people in the Board who picked Fadi, were selected in various ways -
> all of which are arguably forms of democratic (se)election.  Include one of
> which who was elected by representatives we had elected. (yes in that case
> 3 of them had been selected by the Board)
>
> Participatory democracy involves many forms, some of which a
> representational voting events, some of which are nominating committee
> events and some of which require someone who was elected, appointing
> someone, who  appoints someone else.
>
> I did not elect the Supreme court justices or the Fed Chairman and yet
> they are part of democracy.
>
> For better or worse, Fadi was selected by people the community put in the
> role to do such things.
>
> As fat as I am concerned that is how representational democracty works
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 28 Oct 2013, at 06:54, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
> >
> > What democracy ? I didn't vote for Fadi ... Or any of the board members
> >
> > -Jorge
> >
> >> On Oct 28, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In my view there is no better alternative to these experiments with
> ever improving MSism at all level of the governance architecture.  Sure the
> ICANN implementation, as well as the other implementations in other I* and
> IGF as well as in other subject areas, need great improvement,  But for
> now, in my opinion, the are the best approaches there are on participatory
> democracy governance.
> >>
> >> Of course we have to be careful what we are asking for.  And we have to
> be involved every step of the way.
> >>
> >> Obviously we have a different view of scope.
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 28 Oct 2013, at 02:01, Dan Krimm wrote:
> >>>
> >>> To the extent that Fadi is trying to address Internet Governance
> generally
> >>> (forgive me if I am reading too much into his actions?), that would
> seem to
> >>> be out of scope, regardless of whether ICANN/IANA and general-IG both
> would
> >>> benefit from internationalization.
> >>>
> >>> As for multistakeholderism, in principle this all sounds great, but in
> >>> practice it seems to have fallen far short of its intended potential.
>  In
> >>> practice is where the rubber hits the road, and in practice MSism at
> ICANN
> >>> has recently fallen prey to ad hoc action when some "more equal than
> >>> others" stakeholders decide the outcome is not to their liking.  They
> >>> apparently start to think along the lines of "God is not Mocked."
> >>>
> >>> I see MSism as still an experimental work-in-progress, hardly with all
> the
> >>> bugs worked out, and not necessarily "ready for prime time" in terms of
> >>> overall world governance.  The only reason it has worked as free from
> >>> collapse at ICANN as it has up to now, I think, is that the big Powers
> That
> >>> Be in the world (nations and big corporations) hadn't really seen
> ICANN as
> >>> all that meaningful in their general scheme of things.  The more
> important
> >>> ICANN's actions become, the more the big powers will pound on it to
> shape
> >>> it to their desires.  I think you've only seen the bare beginning of
> this
> >>> in the ad hoc shenanigans of the last few years.  Just beginning to
> rev up
> >>> the engines.  MSism has not reached up out of the play-pen to play
> with the
> >>> Big Boys yet, as far as I can tell, and it remains to be seen how it
> will
> >>> fare if it is brought up to the Big Time.
> >>>
> >>> That's a big risk, IMHO.  Be careful what you ask for, you might get
> it.
> >>> And if it doesn't turn out how you expected, what then?  This whole
> MSism
> >>> experiment is a huge exercise in unintended consequences (in the gap
> >>> between theory and practice), if you ask me.  It's worth doing the
> >>> experiment, but I'd be more comfortable if the experiment were closer
> to
> >>> completion before trying it out on anything *really* important.  I
> don't
> >>> see it anywhere near that point, yet.
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone
> and do
> >>> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> At 12:59 AM -0400 10/28/13, avri doria wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> In terms of legitimacy, isn't one of the topics that needs to be
> explored
> >>>> internationalisation of ICANN, and IANA? Isn't that a topic at the
> top of
> >>>> the list? That seems to be in scope.
> >>>>
> >>>> And the ICANN Board seems to be on-board as Fadi was meeting with a
> subset
> >>>> of them (including the Chair) and AC/SO leadership every morning. I
> wasn't
> >>>> in the meetings, and don't know who the rep from gnso was since
> Jonathan
> >>>> wasn't there, so don't know what the level of buy in was, but I heard
> no
> >>>> complaints on the ground.
> >>>>
> >>>> So whatever we might say about scope creep Fadi is not being renegade.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for scope creep Fadi and the leaders of the other I* seem to be
> acting
> >>>> in coordinated faction, so it is within their scope, and would seem
> to be
> >>>> in scope for any one of them to act on I*'s behalf in organizational
> >>>> talks with governments on a meeting planning.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, in this case at least, I see no fundamental problem of overreach
> by
> >>>> Fadi.  And, whether he fully understand what it means, he seems to be
> >>>> carrying the banner of multistakeholderism into these discussions.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, at least this once, I am not ready to join in Fadi-attack.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131028/396904f9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss