Re: [atlarge-discuss] Bucharest on ICANN reform and NomCom

[James Love <james.love@cptech.org>]

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."

      Jamie


------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de