[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

Fri Nov 25 09:39:51 CET 2016

By isolating ourselves and putting ourselves onto some moral high ground and looking down on them we do ourselves a disservice and its certainly an attitude that will get us nowhere in the long run.

+1 with all that James said, but this sentence in particular. I am also uncomfortable with this notion that our stakeholder group is inherently seeking to serve the common good, which may or may not be the case, and others are not. We are no more immune to corruption or the misuse of our entrusted power than anyone else (not to insinuate that is happening at present) and the transparency, accountability, and integrity of our members, constituency, and stakeholder group is a journey that requires constant improvement (as is the case for all stakeholder groups to remain effective and to see an impact from their work). But I don't think our constituency and stakeholder group should be seen as some kind of expression of public morality. We may at times claim to speak on behalf of certain voices, but unlike a business where a consumer can decide not to buy a product that does not meet their standards, we're here whether we deliver or not.

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review
Local Time: 25 November 2016 10:16 AM
UTC Time: 25 November 2016 08:16
From: james at cyberinvasion.net
To: Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>
NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>

I think the insinuation that bribes are being paid to nomcom members, even in rare circumstances is a ludicrous accusation and I would like for you to retract it. Some of this communities best actors participate in nomcom on behalf of all our organisations, how would we as NCUC feel if such accusations were levelled at Bill or Rafik or Brenden? Unless you have documentary evidence of such things I think its best not to run around slandering members of the community.

To be honest I think that you need to speak with people from other constituencies more, if you think that they are all getting paid hourly rates to participate in ICANN and are getting rich of this there is a lot of learning to be done.

And I personally would prefer EC members who say where we can work with others and get stronger as an SG rather than ones that seem to prefer to attack the very people who those of us out in the PDPs and on the committees and teams work with day in day out. By isolating ourselves and putting ourselves onto some moral high ground and looking down on them we do ourselves a disservice and its certainly an attitude that will get us nowhere in the long run.

-James

From: Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>
Date: Friday 25 November 2016 at 05:49
To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

I think actual bribes like cash would be really quite rare, but business interests are satisfied more easily than best interests of humanity. They are collectives based on their business model, whereas we are working to keep the internet free and equal. I think there's a fundamental difference there and we mostly do our work for free, whereas they get paid by the hour.

-Raoul

On 25 November 2016 at 00:28, James Gannon  <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

Do you believe that there are bribes being paid to nomcom members to vote for certain candidates then?
B
Because Im still trying to understand the statement "only a few constituencies can't be simply paid off.”

-james

From: Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday 24 November 2016 at 21:00
To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>

Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

No, I'm saying that it's a valid reason to ask for a bigger representation.

On Nov 24, 2016 22:24, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

And translating that into our current discussion, as I asked in my previous question, does the then mean that you don’t feel our colleagues across the GNSO are motivated by anything other than profit, that there is no common ground for us to find, or that we cannot support them or they cannot support us on issues of ‘decency and humanity’?

-J

From: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> on behalf of Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday 24 November 2016 at 20:20
To: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

I'm not saying that businesses and humanity couldn't be combined or that businesses aren't able to do the right thing, every now and then, but when it comes to making a choice between the two, businesses will choose profit. I don't see any around that.

-Raoul

On 24 November 2016 at 21:55, Johan Helsingius  <julf at julf.com> wrote:

On 24-11-16 20:12, Raoul Plommer wrote:
> Our motivation is to keep internet humane and decent. Others' is to make
> as much money off it, as possible. While it might be a binary way of
> looking at things, it's a very clear line to me.

Raoul,

I am pretty sure you are familiar with my past history. :)

I have spent a heck of a lot of time fighting to make the
internet not so much a humane and decent but free and equal place,
while at the same time making money off (or through) it. The
same goes for some of my friends who founded EFF.

Julf

_______________________________________________
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/20161125/d55c5877/attachment-0002.html>