[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Bucharest on ICANN reform and NomCom
- To: Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Bucharest on ICANN reform and NomCom
- From: James Love <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:40:57 -0400
- CC: atlarge discuss list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- List-Help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
- References: <email@example.com>
- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530
Esther Dyson wrote:
> the way you made it was not constructive.
What was going on in the at large meeting was that Esther and Denis were
giving us the "go with the Borg" pep talk. It isn't constructive to
disagree with they fundamental positions in the "blueprint" documents.
"Constructive" contributions would be to working with the framework on the
blueprint, and not object to the basic design.
We also received a lecture from Esther about how democracy isn't
considered a good thing in many parts of the world.
I was asking if elections by the general public were in fact a taboo in
the new ICANN blueprint.... seeing the GA "no vote" provision, and the way
ICANN was created a "at large structures" that could apparently never vote
on anything, I was asking, is ICANN deliberately creating a system where
any expressions of popular are forbidden?
Raising this issue, or even asking the question, is "not constructive."
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com