[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Membership] Fwd: Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Diane,
> I suppose you intended your reply to go to the list.

Yes.  I use Netscape and habitually use the Reply to Sender command instead of
Reply to Sender and All Recipients.  The latter sends too many cross-posts.  I
keep forgetting that this list isn't configured to Reply to the list.  Thanks for
catching it.

> 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
> right now.
> I am speaking about the consensus that I have personally observed on the lists
> 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, this a
> 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 interest in
> matters pertaining to regulation of names, numbers and parameters is very
> much a minority opinion based on the total numbers of comments that come my way.
> But perhaps you are referring to the DNSO membership, not the At Large
> membership?
> 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
> groundswell of support for it, I expect it will be voiced once ICANN seeks
> public input on that decision.
> Diane Cabell