[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Joe Sims repsonds to criticism of Reform document
- To: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
- Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Joe Sims repsonds to criticism of Reform document
- From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 08:23:03 -0500
- Cc: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss@icann-ncc.org>, "atlarge discuss list" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
- Delivered-To: mailing list atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
- Delivered-To: moderator for atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
- In-Reply-To: <006e01c2096d$cf979be0$0b00a8c0@essential.org>
- List-Help: <mailto:atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de>
- List-Post: <mailto:atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:atlarge-discuss-subscribe@lists.fitug.de>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>
- Mailing-List: contact atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de; run by ezmlm
At 09:11 AM 6/1/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
>demonstrated to not command consensus support in the ICANN community."
>Actually, the ICANN GA just voted 3 to 1 in favor of a motion I proposed
>asking the DoC to rebid the ICANN contracts, so I'm not sure what his point
>is here.
non-representative sampling leads to non-representative results. the GA is
non-representative of much having to do with the real world of ICANN.
>Joe also says I have a discredited view that anything other than "direct
>elections is unacceptable for world democracy." In Thursdays' Washington
>Post, Stuart Lynn characterised those asking for rebid of the DoC ICANN
>contracts as a "group that is trying to transform ICANN from a limited
>technical body into a worldwide experiment in global democracy," which is
>funny, because the whole fight is how to actually have meaningful limits on
>ICANN,
as has been pointed out to you quite a few times, it is folks like you --
and not any ICANN staff or board -- who are constantly focusing on matters
far beyond ICANN's scope. by emphasizing that larger scope, you make it
apply to icann. hence, you -- not icann -- are increasing the scope, as
Lynn stated.
>and keep ICANN out of the politics or non-technical policy making.
your contributions to icann discussions are nothing but political. in fact
you make a point of dismissing all technical matters.
> I
>personally would be happy if ICANN was so reduced in power that one one
>cared who was on the board of directors
take a look at the actual level of public involvement in icann, compared
with the scale of the total Internet population, and you will discover that
by any reasonable measure, no one really does care.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave@tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de