Esther Dyson wrote:
>
> thanks for the comments. Some valid points!
Which point is valid, your Ladyship? That you and Roberts and Sims
have succeeded in eliminating the last vestiges of participatory
democracy from ICANN?
> At 04:22 pm 10/20/1999 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >Below follows my comment on
> >http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws-amend-redline-8oct99.htm#II
> >
> >The proposed language makes it clear that ICANN does no longer intend to be
> >a membership organization as originally envisaged and mandated by the White
> >Paper and by the earlier iterations of the bylaws.
> >
> >The fact that the word "member" is still used in the bylaws is misleading
> >and the term "supporting individual" would be more appropriate.
> >
> >In particular:
> >section 2. The power of the Board to waive fee requirements for selected
> >groups of members might lead to accusations of favouritism for certain
> >groupings of members.
> >It were better if the Board did not have such powers but that independent
> >foundations, not connected to any of the interests represented in the SO's
> >would subsidize members individually or in groups.
> >
> >section 3. This should simply be a members-only mailing list, with proper
> >list rules. This would be the only place where candidates for Council or
> >Board could campaign.
> >
> >Section 4.
> > (f) the word "methods" makes the intent of this article unclear. Is what
> >is meant abuse of the mailing list privileges?
> >(g) "prejudicial to the corporation" should not lightly be used to stifle
> >honest criticism. More detailed procedure is necessary to determine what
> >actually happens before a "member" can be ousted and how fair hearings can
> >be effected.
> >
> >(h)(members can be expelled for any other reasons determined by the
> >Board--presumably the Board minus it's at large members) is is too open
> >ended and should be deleted
> >
> >Section 6. It would be better if this article actually specified a method
> >of nomination and election rather than leave it to the yet unstructured
> >body of members to make this determination.
> >This would greatly speed up the process of getting elected AL Council members.
> >Or is this perhaps not intended?
> >
> >Section 7. General Comment on the Geographic diversity requirements: these
> >will serve to frustrate the membership in the election of globally
> >acceptable candidates and cause division and possibly strife with
> >regionally elected candidates with far less numerical support.
> >
> >Section 9 (b and c) do not provide sufficient safeguards that individuals
> >strongly identified with and represented by SO constituency interests, will
> >not gain additional support for their interests by standing for elections
> >for the AL council.
> >The basic idea behind the AL council is to create genuine balance on the
> >ICANN Board and a counterweight for users' interests that are unrepresented
> >by the SO's.
> >
> >(g) The comprehensibility of this article could greatly benefit by some
> >rewording. Is it meant that a date will be established by which the number
> >of members entitled to participate in an election be frozen?
> >Or did I fail to comprehend it at all?
> >
> >Dropping the whole AL Board member elections when the membership falls
> >below 5000- NO, DO NOT DO THIS.
> >
> >(h) This provision undermines the whole idea of ICANN as a membership
> >organization. If the members are invited to join by a genuine open process,
> >without special announcements to existing interest organizations or special
> >membership fee privileges for such groups, the number of 5000 members
> >should not be the be-all and end-all for the AL membership.
> >
> >The powers of the Board to make membership more attractive or less
> >attractive could be abused to manipulate the membership number around the
> >critical 5000.
> >With this rule in place, being a "member" of a membership of less than 5000
> >holds no attraction at all, leading to a massive negative feedback on the
> >remaining membership as soon as the number would spiral below 5000.
> >The conclusion that an insufficient number of individuals would have an
> >interest in ICANN would become self-fulfilling.
> >
> >I strongly recommend that this provision be deleted.
> >
> >General Comment on these AL "membership" provisions.
> >I fail to see how anyone would be interested to spend precious time, let
> >alone money , on being an ICANN "member", unless this would come
> >pre-packaged with the benefits of a membership in an existing organisation.
> >
> >This is exactly what should *not* happen, in view of the climate of
> >suspicion of capture by certain industry -dominated groups that already
> >exists.
> >But unless these rules are substantially rewritten in the light of comments
> >received from the community, it seems almost inevitable that no
> >*independent* at large membership will come into being.
> >
> >Failure or capture of the AL membership makes it even more important for
> >Individual Domain Name Owners to press for their admission into the DNSO.
> >
> >--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
> >the Cyberspace Association,
> >the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> >http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/
> >
> >
>
> Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1 (212) 924-8800 -- 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
> PC Forum: 12 to 15 March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> Book: "Release 2.1: A design for living in the digital age"
--
============================================================
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
============================================================
