[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Membership] Fwd: Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
I suppose you intended your reply to go to the list.
>Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 20:18:19 -0500
>From: Diane Cabell <email@example.com>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I)
>To: Joop Teernstra <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> With all due respect: whose consensus ?
>> I recall the requirement for the MAC members to be ready to work in a
>> fishbowl environment of transparency.
>> Apart from your own postings, there has been very little evidence of other
>> MAC members involving themselves in the debate and providing argument for
>> or against a "people's Jamahiriya".
>> If I can hear good argument, maybe I can be convinced.
>> Now we hear about consensus.
>> Could we please hear from each MAC member how he/she voted on this issue
>> and why?
>> If "personnel" working in the Internet industry are now also to be
>> considered affected, how far is ICANN's arm going to reach?
>> Together with the hiring of Ogylvy as Public Relations consultant, it
>> looks like an attempt to dilute the only group of stakeholders that would
>> *really* be interested to have representatives on the Board. (....)
>> Not only that, a new democracy stands a better chance of succeeding if it
>> is applied in smaller steps.
>> Once you have a fully functioning and well administered democracy of domain
>> name holders , with a proper representation of those millions of real
>> stakeholders, *then* you can take the next step and expand the democracy to
>> "all users".
>> IMHO, to try to implement an "all users" democracy all at once almost
>> guarantees it to be degraded to a sham.
>You could be right, Joop. We are dealing in a highly speculative business
>I am speaking about the consensus that I have personally observed on the
>and in the few fora that I have personally attended. Non-statistical sample.
>Not definitive. I did not say that any vote had been taken and, indeed,
>decision that ICANN will make, not me, not the MAC. I intended to convey my
>sense that the position that domain holders were the only parties of
>matters pertaining to regulation of names, numbers and parameters is very
>minority opinion based on the total numbers of comments that come my way.
>perhaps you are referring to the DNSO membership, not the At Large
>The fishbowl can be found at http://www.icann.org/membership-com.html and
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/ (see links under The Study).
>The proposal that the At Large membership be restricted to domain holders has
>been made before now. It has not been neglected. If there is a huge
>of support for it, I expect it will be voiced once ICANN seeks public