Re: [ICANN-EU] politics, domocracy and icann (questions to candidates)

["Constantine S. Chassapis" <cschassapis@acm.org>]

Dear Oliver,

Thank you for your maturity and your decision to step down.
I am certain that most of us are struggling with our egos in trying 
to reach your level of maturity. (Or most of us are absent in 
vacations). I owe you some answers to your questions, although
you must understand that after so many days of intense emailing 
there is some degree of reiteration, fact that leads to short answers.


> 1) How do you feel about the election and the endorsement-
>     period (only 2  self-nominated candidates will make it)?

As Mr Schultz already remarked, "Andreas and Roberto have 
said nearly all to say". The way I see it, we were all a little bit
too late in our reaction. It is also true that we did not had much
available time to react anyway. Of course I am not happy about
the 5:2 ratio, the inverse ratio would have been more correct. But,
Mr Gaetano has the last word: "in spite of the disagreement, 
I don't feel wise to concentrate on this. It will take time and 
resources away from discussing other issues".

> 2) Should the ICANN be democratic?

Mr Lutz Donnerhacke said "Difficult question. The major part of 
the directors board should be democratic indeed. But there are a 
lot of questions which should be handled more professionally". In
the same spirit goes the answer of Mr Gaetano: "The problem is how 
to translate [democratic] in practical terms." 

There seems to be a problem here, one that I have already found
expressed in previous emails. It seems that democracy, and 
decisions on technical matters are not quite compatible. I believe
that this is incorrect. I believe that ICANN should be democratic
in all its procedures. Now, why I believe that decisions on
technical matters and democracy are compatible! Look, 
whoever believes the inverse has been, most probably,
the witness of a systematic disfiguration of democracy 
from the abuse of the so-called "democratic procedures". 
Democracy is "fair play". THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
EVERY MAJORITY IS NOT OPPRESSING THE 
MINORITY. That's the difficult thing, 
not performing a voting session! So, methodologies
have been invented, to cope for the much common situation
where the people involved do not respect their essential 
responsibility (most often because there are hidden influences). 
One such methodology is having a member in a board that
has a double vote. Other methodologies can be described
by the interesting term of 'technical democracy' that Mr Griffini
mentioned in his answer. Democracy is not procedures, it is
respect. Respect is not a dry word. It implies the constant
awareness of each one of us that "I might be wrong!", (so I
respect the idea of the other, because he/she might be correct). It 
implies the responsibility of each one of us to know "when
he is wrong" (for example, when he is not competent on an issue).

Dear fellow netizens, that's democracy. It is respect! It is
responsibility! That is what we are all talking about all these days. 
We cannot speak about the rights of the people in the Internet and 
on the same time accepting, that, ok, we can bend the rules a little, 
because, well, technical matters are a ... different story. 


> 3) Only 5 of 9 directors will elected in this election. When and 
>    how should the 4 remaining directors be elected?

I quote Mr Donnerhacke: "In the same way (without nom-com).
The people are aware of ICANN@Large now" I hope that too.
A larger answer about the procedure was offered by Mr Griffini
when he answered your questions.

The most important thing is, I believe, the at large membership
to realize its importance and its power, and ICANN people
and procedures to respect that. (the use of the specific words
refers to my answer in the previous question).

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis