Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALAC teleconference August 9, 2002 Notes

[espresso@e-scape.net]

Hello again,

I swore I was going to try and get some work done today but the e-mail keeps on coming ... Forgive the "digested" reply to this thread but it all belongs together anyhow, I believe.

At 10:10 -0400 2002/08/15, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>I consider myself more of an ALOC/ALAC observer, as opposed to a representative
>with a mandate from the icannatlarge.com membership.  IMO none of the
>summarized proposals is really very acceptable.  But, given a choice among
>evils, of the four possible schemas discussed (and considering that direct
>elections appear to be out of the question for the BoD or the ALAC at this
>time), I think Izumi Aizu's approach towards combining regional and issue-based
>organizations (i.e. the combination of proposal schemas 2 and 4) bears some
>consideration and is preferrable to the other alternatives.

Thank you for your care not to speak on our behalf without a specific mandate BUT, now that we know what models are being considered and how they plan to handle the production of the report, I think we SHOULD mandate you specifically to respond to the proposal on our behalf, clearly statiing that this group does not support even the least objectionable amongst several objectionable options. 

>I should here mention that Esther Dyson was clear during the previous
>teleconference that the current MoU was being scrapped... not sure what the >DoC has to say about that, but E. Dyson was pretty clear on that point.

I think that speaks in favour of our group preparing and issuing a joint statement ASAP to the DoC on the subject, citing (at minimum) the facts:

- that ICANN's mandate includes democratic election of at least some board members as representatives of Internet users as a counterbalance to those elected only parties with a financial interest in excluding the public from decision-making;
- that the original ICANN At Large election process may not have been ideal but nonetheless succeeded in recruiting many thousands of voters worldwide (within three weeks!) to participate in a democratic election process, which is a clear indication that Internet governance is a serious concern to the public;
- that charging a levy on all domain name registrations worldwide so as to provide ICANN with a larger budget definitely constitutes "taxation without representation", an oppressive practice which runs counter to the principles by which the United States governs itself;

whereby it can clearly be seen that ICANN has been working to eliminate the democratic elements to which it committed itself under the current mandate, to disenfranchise Internet users, stifle all criticism even within its own committees (the ALSC having clearly recommended continued representation of the Internet-using public on the ICANN BoD, etc.), and evade its responsibility to protect the Internet as a public good. That being the case, we believe it would be extremely unwise to renew ICANN's mandate without concurrently spelling out (in all possible detail and with suitable penalties for reckless disregard of the public interest) provisions to ensure that a mechanism ensuring a fair and open election process for representatives of the Internet-using public around the world, who should number no less than 50% of the ICANN Board of Directors as insurance against future attempts to turn the Internet into a fiefdom for board members whose private interests conflict with the public good.

{You might want to trim and/or tone that down a little ;-)}

>Furthermore, it does seem as if 'elections' is not a term favoured of 
>the ALAC members proper.  

I don't think their personal preference for autocracy is enshrined in their mandate, do you?

>I have stated that the final report should mention the ALSC study 
>findings and the fact that the ALAC proposal(s) do not coincide 
>with the findings of that Board commissioned study.  However, I'm 
>not sure such an addition will be made to any final draft, as 
>E. Dyson mentioned that dissenting opinions ought not be explicitly >mentioned in the report, but rather that they be characterised as 
>issues that require further discussion and thereby glossed over 
>for the time being.

Sotiris, thank you!

Ms. Dyson, if you believe that a fundamental disagreement can be glossed over by exerting spin-control in the content of final reports, I'm afraid that you're doomed to disappointment. At the very least, a quick Google search will reveal that ICANN's modus operandi is being subjected to close scrutiny and criticism around the world, by governments and industry insiders as well as by us ordinary mortals. I suspect that, whatever the current Board is trying to do, ICANN's mandate is unlikely to be renewed without at least some insistence on greater transparency and a stricter code of conduct for those in positions of responsibility.

Regards,

Judyth



##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once 
they have exhausted all other alternatives." (Abba Eban)
##########################################################
See the UNESCO OBSERVATORY ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY!
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/observatory  



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