Diane Cabell a �crit:
>
> I support most of the MAC recommedations, Mr. Cook. Not all of
> them, but most of them. I want the At-large Membership to be a large, > open,
>democratic body; not a selective, wealthy group. I want any > Internet user to be
>eligible to serve on the
> Board of ICANN, not just the people hand-picked by a Nominating
> Committee.
You want good things. It's unfortunate that you think they will
happen by avoiding structure and hoping for the best. They won't.
All you will accomplish by that is to allow those with an agenda to
take control. Anyone with experience in the formation of large
organizations knows this. But you and the other people chosen to
deal with these questions have no experience in the formation of
large organizations, and are living in a fools paradise. Your good
intentions are paving the way to hell.
I
> think membership should be fee-based, but our study indicates that adjusting fees
> for developing nations ends up costing more than it brings in. No matter what, I
> do not want to see an ICANN operating at a deficit.
>
> Diane Cabell
> MAC
>
> Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> > I got the impression from Michaels remarks that the quoted material was
> > what ICANN had adopted. While he is well capable of speaking for himself,
> > i took his remarks as a decent analysis of how ICANN could misuse this
> > structure. I have seen nothing in ICANN's behavior that leads me to
> > believe that it wouldn't misuse it if it so chose. I was not and I doubt
> > that Michael was intent on attacking either your or Dianne as being
> > directly responsible for the content. you were hardly in a majority
> > position.
> >
> > Is not the membership seen as the only counterweight to a boar d that is in
> > every other respect accountable to no one save it self and the california
> > AG? It was discouraging to sit here and see that we are getting a
> > "membership" which could be wide open to manipulation if vested interest
> > chose to do so. But then most everything about ICANN is disturbing.
> >
> > >Ok, Gordon I'm here.
> > >But I'm not sure what you want from me.
> > >I can tell you that Roberts and Sims had absolutely *nothing* to do
> > >with the MAC recommendations.
> > >Neither of them were present for any telecons I attended.
> > >I can tell you that I was insulted by the tone of Sondow's remarks
> > >(something I am getting used to).
> > >I can also tell you that the work of all of the people he mentions in
> > >his post was considered. It's even in the minutes of some of the
> > >telecons if anyone bothers to look. There's plenty of *why* there.
> > >In particular the Fishkin model was hotly discussed. In the end I
> > >don't recall anyone willing to discard it in favor of direct
> > >democracy. So thats what ended up in the recommendations. And
> > >remember that everyone on the MAC was there (unless they themselves
> > >chose otherwise) in their individual capacity. People voting what
> > >they feel is right. Boring, but that's life.
> > >
> > >Finally, remember that these are mere recommendations to the ICANN
> > >BoD. They can do what they want with 'em, and that includes rejecting
> > >them outright.
> > >
> > ********************************************************************
> > The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur-
> > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See
> > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to
> > subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
> > ********************************************************************
>
> --
>
> Diane Cabell
> http://wwww.mama-tech.com
> Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
> Boston, MA
