Hi Curtis,
You are asking some good questions about some basics
philosophies behind the design and structure of ICANN :-)
By all appearances, the people behind ICANN don't
want voting, they don't want representation, and they
don't want to do anything that would jeopardize their
total control over the Internet.
Originally, we argued for representational structures
that were quantitative. Instead, we got a process that
attempts to control everything about the vote, including
the number of voters, and the candidates they can vote for!
But even if the registration process was working smoothly,
ICANN has taken away your right to control half the board.
Instead of the 9 out of 18 directors as stipulated by the
White Paper, ICANN's current process only results in 5 out
of *19* directors, and ICANN can terminate those 5 at their
option!!!
[Even if you are given a vote in the at-Large membership,
ICANN has taken away your right to be a member. This legal
ploy allows the current board to avoid any of those nasty
rules that apply to California Membership Organizations.]
In actuality, this progression is exactly what we warned
about when the initial ICANN by-laws were approved without
any accountability clauses, and the initial ICANN board
appeared of a virgin birth.
Instead of an *interim* board that stuck around only long
enough to find their legitimately elected replacements (as
promised), they have used the last two years to consolidate
their position, all while making landmark decisions about
the future of the Internet commons.
Much of this history is up at the Iperdome site:
www.iperdome.com
Hope this helps,
Jay.
At 11:12 PM 7/28/00, Curtis E. Sahakian wrote:
>Dear Esther,
>
>Thank you for your response.
>
>You should take another look at your comment that "The problem
>is that a delay would then be "unfair" to those who tried and
>didn't know about the extended deadline, and so forth and so
>on."
>
>To an outsider it sounds more like an insider rationalization
>for disenfranchisement of outsiders... that it would be unfair
>to this disenfranchised class to do anything other than to
>disenfranchise them (other than for a lucky few).
>
>The good white folk of the 50s had many sincere excuses for the
>barriers they erected to disenfranchise black voters. Many of
>these excuses were no less logical than the above. In the end
>it really didn't matter. All the excuses seemed to end up
>supporting and justifying the same results... the erection of
>barriers to the fair representation of "undeserving" elements of
>society. Why? These people were expected to make improper use
>of their votes.
>
>Whether or not that is happening here, if you are the one being
>disenfranchised, it sure feels like it is.
>
>In fact both then and now it seems that the responsible people
>in control found it difficult to even discuss the issue without
>leaking the obvious concern that "these people" can't fully be
>expected to exercise their vote in a responsible way and that's
>why we need the safeguards which...Oops.. seem to have the
>result of reducing their representation.
>
>My understanding was that your staff was hoping that no more
>than 10,000 people would register. The internet is a big place.
> I would propose that you should find it unacceptable if your
>staff is unable to generate at least 1,000,000 registrations.
>
>It is very easy for ICANN to generate huge amounts of world wide
>publicity. I have seen no evidence of it using this ability to
>promote wide scale registrations. From what gets through to me
>in the press, I see an organization from which emanates policies
>and communications that appear designed to discourage
>participation. For instance instead of emphasizing that
>registration is FREE, ICANN appears to emphasize that it is
>going to charge a yet "to be determined" membership fee.
>
>It is the grass roots perception of unfairness that is
>generating what demand for registration there is.
>
>If NSI had carefully attended to the issue of fairness and
>perception of fairness, they would likely still be in control of
>their registration franchise. They didn't and they aren't. If
>ICANN doesn't start proactively addressing this issue in a
>satisfactory manner, the same fait may await it.
>
>I propose that your job entails
>
>1. not only efficiently running ICANN,
>
>2. not only running it fairly, but
>
>3. delivering the appearance of fairness.
>
>You may well be doing the first (running ICANN efficiently). It
>appears to me that you are not doing the second. You are
>definitely not doing the third.
>
>I'd like to encourage you to try doing all three with equal
>vigor. Doing the first alone isn't good enough. Even doing the
>first two isn't good enough.
>
>For you to succeed, you must succeed equally with all three
>deliverables.
>
> What grade would you give yourself on the third deliverable?
>If you reported to someone, and your were that someone, how
>would you rate your performance? How would you rate the
>performance of the ICANN staff? Was the selection of the
>inadequate registration server and the failure to quickly
>upgrade it the result of sinister design, mopery or other
>causes.
>
>Does that even matter? Would you accept any excuses from an
>employee in your own business if they screwed up a subscription
>campaign like this registration process has been... and then
>pretended that it didn't matter?
>
>Doing all three of the above items adequately is better than
>doing the first one very well and the last two poorly.
>
>It may be that this job can be better handled by a politician
>than by an entrepreneur. Maybe ICANN is a venture that needs to
>be de-privatized.
>
>Curtis Sahakian
>847/676-2774
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>----------
>
> >
> > Believe me, we have considered this, and many other options as
>well! The
> > level of interest has simply taken us by surprise. The problem
>is that a
> > delay would then be "unfair" to those who tried and didn't
>know about the
> > extended deadline, and so forth and so on. Meanwhile, that
>would mean
> > delaying the rest of the process, because we also need time
>for people to
> > get their PINs, and then for them to support independent
>candidates for the
> > board. So in the end we decided to keep the schedule as
>is..... The
> > deadline, like most deadlines, is arbitrary anyway, and it
>makes more sense
> > to keep it as is because changing it would cause other
>disruptions.
> >
> > Esther
> >
> > At 12:30 PM 7/28/00 -0400, Mikki Barry wrote:
> > >Esther -
> > >
> > >Given the overload with the server and the other technical
>issues,
> > >wouldn't it be prudent to extend the deadline for voter
>registration
> > >to give another chance to those who have been unable to
>access it?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
> > chairman, EDventure Holdings
> > 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
> >
> > PC Forum: 25 to 28 March 2001, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> > Book: "Release 2.1: A design for living in the digital age"
> > High-Tech Forum in Europe: November 1 to 3 - Barcelona
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello,
New Media Strategies
------------------------------------
http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
-------------------------------------------------------
"We are witness to the emergence of an epic struggle
between corporate globalization and popular democracy."
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/korten/korten_feasta.shtml
-- David Korten
