Re: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0

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

Lawrence B. Solum wrote:
> As you might guess from my perspective on this issue, you and I would
> probably disagree about a wide range of other issues.  For example, I favor
> the use of intermediate organizations to provide representative feedback to
> an at-large process (whether it terminates in board seats or not), and
> believe that direct at large elections pose difficult or insurmountable
> problems of legitimacy. 

    I have always  been quite flexible in terms of how the public 
representation is addressed, but not having any representation at all isn't 
a very good outcome.  If the board would have allowed an SO for individual 
users, and given them a few seats on the board, ICANN would have saved 
themselves a lot of grief.   The CIRA has given up 9 seats on their board to 
an at-large, and ICANN is willing to give up zero, which is a pretty small 
number.  Even with the ALOC committee, I ask Denise and Esther regularly to 
explain how this group makes decisions or picks its leaders.  If you know, I 
would like to know.    The ICANN Blueprint for "reform" eliminated GA 
elections for its own chair and all votes on anything.  How exactly does is 
the ALOC ruled?    What is its source of "legitimacy."?

     ICANN insiders seems to want to not only control who has majority 
control on the board, but also to suppress all dissent.  Have you noticed? 
In Bucharest Jonathan Cohen was telling people that he would not allow any 
system that would put people like Karl or Andy on the board.  These were 
just 2 of 19 board members, and they certainly do represent a lot of 
Internet user views.  Indeed, why can't a harmless and powerless debating 
society like the GA be permited to elect its own leaders or hold non-binding 
straw votes?

     Why is this new ALOC outreach group using the term "at-large."????   Up 
until now, this meant individuals, and voting.  Now it means the opposite. 
What the point of redefining the term "at-large" if not to confuse people 
and to distract people from the systematic elimination of any popular voice 
in the ICANN process?   If you really believe that individuals should have 
not representation and there should be no voting by the public, then why not 
be honest about it, and use plain language, like public outreach or 
something less confusing?

> I have grave misgivings about the fundamental structure of ICANN,
> which I believe is based on naive and romantic assumptions about economics,
> political theory, and organizational dynamics. 

     What I really find appalling is the new Blueprint discussion of the 
policy making process.  This document really does present ICANN as a global 
government for the Internet.  Have you read it?

   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