Next version of the Frameworks and Principles for Accountability and Transparency
This document cites as an "Internal Accountability" factor the "Representative Composition of the ICANN Board". As we all know, the users have no representatives on this Board -- they were eliminated when ICANN purged all at-large directors from the board several years ago -- as such, there is no internal accountability. Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have gone for the last five years without registrant data escrow? Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have waited for a calamity like RegisterFly before acting to update the RAA? Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have still been paying the outrageous Redemption Grace Period fees that are being assessed? Had there been user representatives on half of the boars, do you think that we would have tolerated the VeriSign price increase? There was a reason why the White Paper called for a balanced board, because you cannot allow special interest communities to dominate an organizational agenda at the expense of the public interest. At the moment we have a Nominating Committee that selects a half of the Board, yet the vast bulk of these nominating committee members hail from the special interest communities -- the end result: board appointments that continue to reflect special-interest community concerns while the needs of the public continue to get scant attention. You know in your hearts that this is neither right nor acceptable. Accountability demands that we honor the principle of a balanced board. This is what ALAC members should be fighting for. It's time to stand up and defend the unrepresented, the user community that nowhere within ICANN has any representation. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Considering that when we had direct elections we had representatives that, like for instance Katoh-san, were excellent Directors but not really defending the users' interests, the answer on all your questions below might well be "Probably yes". This said, I prefer to have an ALAC that is forward looking, and not an ALAC who chooses to go again on a path that has already failed in the past. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 18 October 2007 14:12 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] Next version of the Frameworks and Principles forAccountability and Transparency
This document cites as an "Internal Accountability" factor the "Representative Composition of the ICANN Board". As we all know, the users have no representatives on this Board -- they were eliminated when ICANN purged all at-large directors from the board several years ago -- as such, there is no internal accountability.
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have gone for the last five years without registrant data escrow?
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have waited for a calamity like RegisterFly before acting to update the RAA?
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have still been paying the outrageous Redemption Grace Period fees that are being assessed?
Had there been user representatives on half of the boars, do you think that we would have tolerated the VeriSign price increase?
There was a reason why the White Paper called for a balanced board, because you cannot allow special interest communities to dominate an organizational agenda at the expense of the public interest.
At the moment we have a Nominating Committee that selects a half of the Board, yet the vast bulk of these nominating committee members hail from the special interest communities -- the end result: board appointments that continue to reflect special-interest community concerns while the needs of the public continue to get scant attention. You know in your hearts that this is neither right nor acceptable.
Accountability demands that we honor the principle of a balanced board. This is what ALAC members should be fighting for. It's time to stand up and defend the unrepresented, the user community that nowhere within ICANN has any representation.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
At 23:22 10/18/2007 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Considering that when we had direct elections we had representatives that, like for instance Katoh-san, were excellent Directors but not really defending the users' interests, the answer on all your questions below might well be "Probably yes".
This said, I prefer to have an ALAC that is forward looking, and not an ALAC who chooses to go again on a path that has already failed in the past.
Agree with you on that. One of the reasons why we joined the At Large some years ago was exactly because of that - we wanted to move forward, and contribute positively. This constant looking back makes the movement forward risky. As for the "defending of the users' interests", we often see that the registrants' interests are OK, it's the interests of the commercial registrants that seem to have been suffering? I wonder if at this mailing list there are people who are concerned with the interests of the commercial registrants? Best, Veni
At 23:22 10/18/2007 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Considering that when we had direct elections we had representatives that, like for instance Katoh-san, were excellent Directors but not really defending the users' interests, the answer on all your questions below might well be "Probably yes".
This said, I prefer to have an ALAC that is forward looking, and not an ALAC who chooses to go again on a path that has already failed in the past.
Agree with you on that. One of the reasons why we joined the At Large some years ago was exactly because of that - we wanted to move forward, and contribute positively. This constant looking back makes the movement forward risky. As for the "defending of the users' interests", we often see that the registrants' interests are OK, it's the interests of the commercial registrants that seem to have been suffering? I wonder if at this mailing list there are people who are concerned with the interests of the commercial registrants? Best, Sincerely, Veni Markovski The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of the Internet Society - Bulgaria (http://www.isoc.bg), or any other organizations, associated with or related to the author. This note is not legal advice. If it was, it would come with an invoice.
Please feel free to enlighten us. What path are you proposing that would lead to at-large directors seated on the ICANN Board? danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Considering that when we had direct elections we had representatives that, like for instance Katoh-san, were excellent Directors but not really defending the users' interests, the answer on all your questions below might well be "Probably yes".
This said, I prefer to have an ALAC that is forward looking, and not an ALAC who chooses to go again on a path that has already failed in the past.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 18 October 2007 14:12 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] Next version of the Frameworks and Principles forAccountability and Transparency
This document cites as an "Internal Accountability" factor the "Representative Composition of the ICANN Board". As we all know, the users have no representatives on this Board -- they were eliminated when ICANN purged all at-large directors from the board several years ago -- as such, there is no internal accountability.
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have gone for the last five years without registrant data escrow?
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have waited for a calamity like RegisterFly before acting to update the RAA?
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have still been paying the outrageous Redemption Grace Period fees that are being assessed?
Had there been user representatives on half of the boars, do you think that we would have tolerated the VeriSign price increase?
There was a reason why the White Paper called for a balanced board, because you cannot allow special interest communities to dominate an organizational agenda at the expense of the public interest.
At the moment we have a Nominating Committee that selects a half of the Board, yet the vast bulk of these nominating committee members hail from the special interest communities -- the end result: board appointments that continue to reflect special-interest community concerns while the needs of the public continue to get scant attention. You know in your hearts that this is neither right nor acceptable.
Accountability demands that we honor the principle of a balanced board. This is what ALAC members should be fighting for. It's time to stand up and defend the unrepresented, the user community that nowhere within ICANN has any representation.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Danny, We discussed this several times in different contexts, so you know already the answer. First of all, I have a different approach. To me voting rights are the means to achieve a result, not the result itself. So my first question has always been: "Voting rights to do what?". And if the answer is "To bring the point of view of disenfranchised people to the table" my answer has always been: "In this case, let's start to build the point of view of the disenfranchised people, and put it forward. If it has merit, we will be better off in asking for voting rights to support it". What I saw in other attempts to get representation for people and entities like individual registrants, is that most of the discussion goes on complaining not to have voting power, the next big chunk on administrivia, close to zero goes to actually discuss the issues, and less than zero to achieve a common position (in the sense that if by chance there is a message who tries to build, within minutes you have half a dozen replies aimed to destroy). ALAC, up to now, has not taken this route, and I hope it does not. I hope that, now that the organizational efforts have given results (in spite of the ones, including you, who attempted to sabotage the formation process), we can concentrate on what the purpose of ALAC is: to produce policy documents reflecting the opinions of the at-large membership that ALAC represents. I have had the great honour of being the ALAC Liaison to the Board for three years. I have witnessed the change in the general attitude of the Board over time, and this was in great essence to the quality of the documents produced by ALAC and presented to the Board. True, these documents were reflecting only the opinion of some 15 people, not the millions of users. But now that the ALAC structure is in place we have the chance to give more power to the new documents that will be coming from a wider consultation. If this will happen, we can substantate our request for a seat at the table. If this does not happen, our claims for representation will have the same value as dogs barking to the moon: mucho ruido y pocas nueces. Hence, my implicit suggestion for giving priority to policy development. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 19 October 2007 02:54 To: Roberto Gaetano; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] Next version of the Frameworks and Principles forAccountability and Transparency
Please feel free to enlighten us. What path are you proposing that would lead to at-large directors seated on the ICANN Board?
danny
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Considering that when we had direct elections we had representatives that, like for instance Katoh-san, were excellent Directors but not really defending the users' interests, the answer on all your questions below might well be "Probably yes".
This said, I prefer to have an ALAC that is forward looking, and not an ALAC who chooses to go again on a path that has already failed in the past.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 18 October 2007 14:12 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] Next version of the Frameworks and Principles forAccountability and Transparency
This document cites as an "Internal Accountability" factor the "Representative Composition of the ICANN Board". As we all know, the users have no representatives on this Board -- they were eliminated when ICANN purged all at-large directors from the board several years ago -- as such, there is no internal accountability.
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have gone for the last five years without registrant data escrow?
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have waited for a calamity like RegisterFly before acting to update the RAA?
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have still been paying the outrageous Redemption Grace Period fees that are being assessed?
Had there been user representatives on half of the boars, do you think that we would have tolerated the VeriSign price increase?
There was a reason why the White Paper called for a balanced board, because you cannot allow special interest communities to dominate an organizational agenda at the expense of the public interest.
At the moment we have a Nominating Committee that selects a half of the Board, yet the vast bulk of these nominating committee members hail from the special interest communities -- the end result: board appointments that continue to reflect special-interest community concerns while the needs of the public continue to get scant attention. You know in your hearts that this is neither right nor acceptable.
Accountability demands that we honor the principle of a balanced board. This is what ALAC members should be fighting for. It's time to stand up and defend the unrepresented, the user community that nowhere within ICANN has any representation.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Roberto, In that you have served as Chair of the GA, you well understand that there has always been a group whose views have never had an advocate in the GNSO Council. These are the people in the periphery, the registrants, the users, the concerned members of the public that have no identifiable constituency to safeguard their interests. Their points of view are usually ignored, set aside, disregarded or condemned by the special-interest communities that won't make room for another seat at the table. This has led to bad policy development, with the new gTLD recommendations being just the latest example of what happens when these special interests fail to accomodate views held by the public at large -- it then forces members of the board to return the recommendations for further work because the recommendations are inherently flawed. This system, that grants a seat at the table to everyone except the public advocates, is destroying ICANN. We have bad decision-making at the GNSO-level and even worse decision-making at the Board level because of your stubborn refusal to respect the representative principle. There is no need to "build" the views of the disenfranchised; they are perfectly capable of make their needs known (just look at all the comments posted on RegisterFly). The only need is to allow the disenfranchised a seat at the table so that a panorama of views can be evaluated. Every other community has their representatives seated on the Board. To continue discriminating against the public is arrogant in the extreme, and you will recall that the earlier IAHC failed precisely because it was criticized as being insufficiently representative. While I continue to appreciate your expression of your personal views on this matter, don't you think that it's time (in light of all the review activities underway -- GNSO Review, ALAC Review, NonCom Review, Board Review) to take up, at a Board Level, the issue of user "representation"? Or perhaps you think that the US DOC will grant ICANN independence in spite of ICANN having made no efforts to deal with its representative imbalance... --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny,
We discussed this several times in different contexts, so you know already the answer. First of all, I have a different approach. To me voting rights are the means to achieve a result, not the result itself. So my first question has always been: "Voting rights to do what?". And if the answer is "To bring the point of view of disenfranchised people to the table" my answer has always been: "In this case, let's start to build the point of view of the disenfranchised people, and put it forward. If it has merit, we will be better off in asking for voting rights to support it". What I saw in other attempts to get representation for people and entities like individual registrants, is that most of the discussion goes on complaining not to have voting power, the next big chunk on administrivia, close to zero goes to actually discuss the issues, and less than zero to achieve a common position (in the sense that if by chance there is a message who tries to build, within minutes you have half a dozen replies aimed to destroy). ALAC, up to now, has not taken this route, and I hope it does not. I hope that, now that the organizational efforts have given results (in spite of the ones, including you, who attempted to sabotage the formation process), we can concentrate on what the purpose of ALAC is: to produce policy documents reflecting the opinions of the at-large membership that ALAC represents.
I have had the great honour of being the ALAC Liaison to the Board for three years. I have witnessed the change in the general attitude of the Board over time, and this was in great essence to the quality of the documents produced by ALAC and presented to the Board. True, these documents were reflecting only the opinion of some 15 people, not the millions of users. But now that the ALAC structure is in place we have the chance to give more power to the new documents that will be coming from a wider consultation. If this will happen, we can substantate our request for a seat at the table. If this does not happen, our claims for representation will have the same value as dogs barking to the moon: mucho ruido y pocas nueces.
Hence, my implicit suggestion for giving priority to policy development.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 19 October 2007 02:54 To: Roberto Gaetano; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] Next version of the Frameworks and Principles forAccountability and Transparency
Please feel free to enlighten us. What path are you proposing that would lead to at-large directors seated on the ICANN Board?
danny
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Considering that when we had direct elections we had representatives that, like for instance Katoh-san, were excellent Directors but not really defending the users' interests, the answer on all your questions below might well be "Probably yes".
This said, I prefer to have an ALAC that is forward looking, and not an ALAC who chooses to go again on a path that has already failed in the past.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 18 October 2007 14:12 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] Next version of the Frameworks and Principles forAccountability and Transparency
This document cites as an "Internal Accountability" factor the "Representative Composition of the ICANN Board". As we all know, the users have no representatives on this Board -- they were eliminated when ICANN purged all at-large directors from the board several years ago -- as such, there is no internal accountability.
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have gone for the last five years without registrant data escrow?
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have waited for a calamity like RegisterFly before acting to update the RAA?
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have still been paying the outrageous Redemption Grace Period fees that are being assessed?
Had there been user representatives on half of the boars, do you think that we would have tolerated the VeriSign price increase?
There was a reason why the White Paper called for a balanced board, because you cannot allow special interest communities to dominate an organizational agenda at the expense of the public interest.
At the moment we have a Nominating Committee that selects a half of the Board, yet the vast bulk of these nominating committee members hail from the special interest communities -- the end result: board appointments that continue to reflect special-interest community concerns while the needs of the public continue to get scant attention.
You know in
your hearts that this is neither right nor acceptable.
Accountability demands that we honor the principle of a balanced board. This is what ALAC members should
=== message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Danny, Why did you ask my opinion? Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 19 October 2007 15:17 To: Roberto Gaetano; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] Next version of the Frameworks and Principles forAccountability and Transparency
Roberto,
In that you have served as Chair of the GA, you well understand that there has always been a group whose views have never had an advocate in the GNSO Council. These are the people in the periphery, the registrants, the users, the concerned members of the public that have no identifiable constituency to safeguard their interests. Their points of view are usually ignored, set aside, disregarded or condemned by the special-interest communities that won't make room for another seat at the table. This has led to bad policy development, with the new gTLD recommendations being just the latest example of what happens when these special interests fail to accomodate views held by the public at large -- it then forces members of the board to return the recommendations for further work because the recommendations are inherently flawed.
This system, that grants a seat at the table to everyone except the public advocates, is destroying ICANN. We have bad decision-making at the GNSO-level and even worse decision-making at the Board level because of your stubborn refusal to respect the representative principle.
There is no need to "build" the views of the disenfranchised; they are perfectly capable of make their needs known (just look at all the comments posted on RegisterFly). The only need is to allow the disenfranchised a seat at the table so that a panorama of views can be evaluated.
Every other community has their representatives seated on the Board. To continue discriminating against the public is arrogant in the extreme, and you will recall that the earlier IAHC failed precisely because it was criticized as being insufficiently representative.
While I continue to appreciate your expression of your personal views on this matter, don't you think that it's time (in light of all the review activities underway -- GNSO Review, ALAC Review, NonCom Review, Board Review) to take up, at a Board Level, the issue of user "representation"? Or perhaps you think that the US DOC will grant ICANN independence in spite of ICANN having made no efforts to deal with its representative imbalance...
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny,
We discussed this several times in different contexts, so you know already the answer. First of all, I have a different approach. To me voting rights are the means to achieve a result, not the result itself. So my first question has always been: "Voting rights to do what?". And if the answer is "To bring the point of view of disenfranchised people to the table" my answer has always been: "In this case, let's start to build the point of view of the disenfranchised people, and put it forward. If it has merit, we will be better off in asking for voting rights to support it". What I saw in other attempts to get representation for people and entities like individual registrants, is that most of the discussion goes on complaining not to have voting power, the next big chunk on administrivia, close to zero goes to actually discuss the issues, and less than zero to achieve a common position (in the sense that if by chance there is a message who tries to build, within minutes you have half a dozen replies aimed to destroy). ALAC, up to now, has not taken this route, and I hope it does not. I hope that, now that the organizational efforts have given results (in spite of the ones, including you, who attempted to sabotage the formation process), we can concentrate on what the purpose of ALAC is: to produce policy documents reflecting the opinions of the at-large membership that ALAC represents.
I have had the great honour of being the ALAC Liaison to the Board for three years. I have witnessed the change in the general attitude of the Board over time, and this was in great essence to the quality of the documents produced by ALAC and presented to the Board. True, these documents were reflecting only the opinion of some 15 people, not the millions of users. But now that the ALAC structure is in place we have the chance to give more power to the new documents that will be coming from a wider consultation. If this will happen, we can substantate our request for a seat at the table. If this does not happen, our claims for representation will have the same value as dogs barking to the moon: mucho ruido y pocas nueces.
Hence, my implicit suggestion for giving priority to policy development.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 19 October 2007 02:54 To: Roberto Gaetano; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] Next version of the Frameworks and Principles forAccountability and Transparency
Please feel free to enlighten us. What path are you proposing that would lead to at-large directors seated on the ICANN Board?
danny
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Considering that when we had direct elections we had representatives that, like for instance Katoh-san, were excellent Directors but not really defending the users' interests, the answer on all your questions below might well be "Probably yes".
This said, I prefer to have an ALAC that is forward looking, and not an ALAC who chooses to go again on a path that has already failed in the past.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 18 October 2007 14:12 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] Next version of the Frameworks and Principles forAccountability and Transparency
This document cites as an "Internal Accountability" factor the "Representative Composition of the ICANN Board". As we all know, the users have no representatives on this Board -- they were eliminated when ICANN purged all at-large directors from the board several years ago -- as such, there is no internal accountability.
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have gone for the last five years without registrant data escrow?
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have waited for a calamity like RegisterFly before acting to update the RAA?
Had there been user representatives on half of the board, do you think that we would have still been paying the outrageous Redemption Grace Period fees that are being assessed?
Had there been user representatives on half of the boars, do you think that we would have tolerated the VeriSign price increase?
There was a reason why the White Paper called for a balanced board, because you cannot allow special interest communities to dominate an organizational agenda at the expense of the public interest.
At the moment we have a Nominating Committee that selects a half of the Board, yet the vast bulk of these nominating committee members hail from the special interest communities -- the end result: board appointments that continue to reflect special-interest community concerns while the needs of the public continue to get scant attention.
You know in
your hearts that this is neither right nor acceptable.
Accountability demands that we honor the principle of a balanced board. This is what ALAC members should
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Roberto, Sometimes one wants to know if anyone on the board is listening... Sometimes there is a value in the exchange of ideas... Sometimes one hopes that those in charge actually have a plan to deal with a situation rather than allowing a bad situation to fester.... Sometimes Board-level leadership is appreciated... and sometimes one asks a question in the hopes of getting a real answer, not just vapid replies that if the ALAC places nice for the next several years that maybe sometime in the far distant future the board will graciously consider a request for representative status. How very noble. Reminds me of the Board response to the IDNO petitions... and the Board response to the ALSC consensus recommendations... perhaps "let them eat cake" should become the official board motto.. regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny, Why did you ask my opinion? Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 19 October 2007 15:17 To: Roberto Gaetano; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] Next version of the Frameworks and Principles forAccountability and Transparency
Roberto,
In that you have served as Chair of the GA, you well understand that there has always been a group whose views have never had an advocate in the GNSO Council. These are the people in the periphery, the registrants, the users, the concerned members of the public that have no identifiable constituency to safeguard their interests. Their points of view are usually ignored, set aside, disregarded or condemned by the special-interest communities that won't make room for another seat at the table. This has led to bad policy development, with the new gTLD recommendations being just the latest example of what happens when these special interests fail to accomodate views held by the public at large -- it then forces members of the board to return the recommendations for further work because the recommendations are inherently flawed.
This system, that grants a seat at the table to everyone except the public advocates, is destroying ICANN. We have bad decision-making at the GNSO-level and even worse decision-making at the Board level because of your stubborn refusal to respect the representative principle.
There is no need to "build" the views of the disenfranchised; they are perfectly capable of make their needs known (just look at all the comments posted on RegisterFly). The only need is to allow the disenfranchised a seat at the table so that a panorama of views can be evaluated.
Every other community has their representatives seated on the Board. To continue discriminating against the public is arrogant in the extreme, and you will recall that the earlier IAHC failed precisely because it was criticized as being insufficiently representative.
While I continue to appreciate your expression of your personal views on this matter, don't you think that it's time (in light of all the review activities underway -- GNSO Review, ALAC Review, NonCom Review, Board Review) to take up, at a Board Level, the issue of user "representation"? Or perhaps you think that the US DOC will grant ICANN
independence in spite of ICANN having made no efforts to deal with its representative imbalance...
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny,
We discussed this several times in different contexts, so you know already the answer. First of all, I have a different approach. To me voting rights are the means to achieve a result, not the result itself. So my first question has always been: "Voting rights to do what?". And if the answer is "To bring the point of view of disenfranchised people to the table" my answer has always been: "In this case, let's start to build the point of view of the disenfranchised people, and put it forward. If it has merit, we will be better off in asking for voting rights to support it". What I saw in other attempts to get representation for people and entities like individual registrants, is that most of the discussion goes on complaining not to have voting power, the next big chunk on administrivia, close to zero goes to actually discuss the issues, and less than zero to achieve a common position (in the sense that if by chance there is a message who tries to build, within minutes you have half a dozen replies aimed to destroy). ALAC, up to now, has not taken this route, and I hope it does not. I hope that, now that the organizational efforts have given results (in spite of the ones, including you, who attempted to sabotage the formation process), we can concentrate on what the purpose of ALAC is: to produce policy documents reflecting the opinions of the at-large membership that ALAC represents.
I have had the great honour of being the ALAC Liaison to the Board for three years. I have witnessed the change in the general attitude of the Board over time, and this was in great essence to the quality of the documents produced by ALAC and presented to the Board. True, these documents were reflecting only the opinion of some 15 people, not the millions of users. But now that the ALAC structure is in place we have the chance to give more power to the new documents that will be coming from a wider consultation. If this will happen, we can substantate our request for a seat at the table. If this does not happen, our claims for representation will have the same value as dogs barking to the moon: mucho ruido y pocas nueces.
Hence, my implicit suggestion for giving priority to policy development.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 19 October 2007 02:54 To: Roberto Gaetano; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] Next version of the
=== message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (3)
-
Danny Younger -
Roberto Gaetano -
Veni Markovski