Estimada Evan como tu tengo una relativa juventud en la política de ICANN - y asimismo coincido con tu expresión "...Esta cultura del consenso simplemente ha llevado a la gobernanza "lo que ofende Lo menos "en lugar de liderazgo o incluso de su afirmación publicada Misión. Todo en aras de la cortesía. Es incluso el arraigado.--" Pero deseo aclararte ésta forma de hacer las cosas de la ICANN no tiene nada que ver con el consenso, se trata de una expresión del proyecto político del imperialismo encarnada en el capitalismo. En muchos de nuestros países latinoamericanos, incluida la Argentina, hoy siguen dominando los mismos sectores sociales de antaño, los de gruesos billetes y abultadas cuentas bancarias. Ha mutado la imagen, ha cambiado la puesta en escena, se ha transformado el discurso, pero no se ha modificado el sistema económico, social y político de dominación. Incluso se ha perfeccionado. Hoy, con discurso "progre" o sin él, la misión estratégica que el capital transnacional y sus socias más estrechas, las burguesías locales, le asignaron a los gobiernos "progresistas" de la región -desde el Partido Justicialista argentino y el Frente Amplio uruguayo de Tabaré Vázquez hasta la concertación de Bachelet en Chile y el actual PT de Lula- consiste en lograr el retorno a la "normalidad" del capitalismo latinoamericano. Se trata de resolver la crisis orgánica reconstruyendo el consenso y la credibilidad de las instituciones burguesas para garantizar EL ORDEN. Es decir: la continuidad del capitalismo dependiente. En medio de toda esa fenomenal puesta en escena mediática "progre", donde el neoliberalismo aparece perfumado y con peinado de peluquería elegante, las percepciones de lo real son cada vez más complejas. Quizá por esto, el culto actual de la imagen funciona como un escapismo a una realidad cada vez más vacía de sentido y totalmente manipulada por un sistema de dominación interesado en el "consenso", en tanto negación del conflicto.- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yassin Mshana" <ymshana2003@hotmail.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: <ethinktanktz@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS Thank you for the input and insight (from the ex-Board Mem It seems that there was a lot deal of things that the entire community should have known since there was "consensus" and maybe within "politeness" - I wonder where there were elements of "diplomacy" in the process. Is there a way forward since some lessons have been learnt? The wheel is not spinning in snow or mud ... surely there are ideas and opinions that are forthcoming before ICANN Mexico is concluded.. . Yassin (needs to be space-moderated)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:21:46 -0500 From: > To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Making no attempt to defend ICANN on these matters, I think that you are confusing "consensus policy" and "politeness" with not taking strong positions.
To me, politeness in this context is an explicit aversion to confrontation. Its inability to invoke policy unless everyone agrees simply leads to policy that offends nobody. In ICANN's current world driven by politics, money, and attempts by some to turn it into a defacto treaty organization, this means that any counter-initiative that asserts the public interest -- or attempts to curtail ICANN's own internal lust for growth -- is doomed to fail.
The Westlake rationale against giving votes to At-Large was that Board members who were ("overly") assertive of the public interest would threaten the consensus process by confronting the existing inertia -- perhaps it would refuse to agree to policy that was seen to be against the public interest, even if everyone else on the Board agreed. Heaven forbid that they would block "compromises" that simply rewarded the most persistent bullies. In the worst-case scenario, they might even force *votes* and force individual Board members to account for their own decisions. How dare they!
I sincerely thank the BGC ALAC review committee for resisting the worst of the Westlake report. Still, I but cannot help but wonder who gave Westlake its frames of reference, ones seemingly designed to keep At-Large docile, toothless and chasing its own tail?
In short, it is fine to arrive at a "consensus", but the process of getting there can, and in a polically-charged world such as ICANN's, SHOULD be rough indeed. That can only happen if the corners of ICANN that have traditionally gotten their way unchecked themselves learn to compromise. This is IMO unlikely but still remotely possible.
ICANN's "Consensus Policy" concept is that in the end, IF most people agree, then it can become a formal policy. But the process of getting there, IF you actually do get there, may be polite and civil (although perhaps not always) but there is no shortage of people publicly and loudly pointing out their disagreement. If there is public and loud disagreement from board members on a decided policy, then how is that result called a consensus? To me, that simply sounds like an informal vote in which the "winners" decline personal responsibility for their action, hiding behind the herd.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&...