>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Steve Doty" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:56:24 -0400 (EDT) > >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 3 11:56:22 2000 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from bigmuddy.jaxx.net (Bigmuddy.Jaxx.Net [216.24.134.96]) > by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD18F030 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:56:19 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from bayoublue (dhcp035.46.lvcm.com [24.234.46.35]) > by bigmuddy.jaxx.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id e73Fo9a15659; > Thu, 3 Aug 2000 08:50:09 -0700 (PDT) >From: "Steve Doty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Jean Camp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN >Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 08:48:55 -0700 >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) >Importance: Normal >In-Reply-To: <v03110708b5af350cf24a@[128.103.190.164]> >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 > > > Well the real question her his do any of us that are complaining have corp. >sponsors? If we do not have that Million dollar sponsorship then We can not >do nothing. We are just specks on the icanns ass. > > > > > > > >IMHO >Steve Doty >Jaxx Communications, inc. (been fighting for ISP's right for 6 years and >getting no where) > > > > >As friends, or at least a collegial colleague, of people on both sides of >what began as a cooperative process and has become a series of sometimes >personal battles I believe I offer an useful perspective on ICANN. > >In organizations which are participatory people are far happier with the >outcome than in organizations which are not participatory regardless of the >facts of the outcome. Winners and losers are happier and more define >themselves in the first category. In short the problem with ICANN has been >overwhelmingly ne of participation. > >There has been anger at ICANN that has further mired a struggling >organization which is attempting to met an ill-defined mandate in >unrealistic conditions created by flawed Federal oversight. Ironically two >of these problems -- the anger and the struggling -- could be solved by >increased participation. ICANN has tried to solve its problems itself >without reaching out to other organizations, beyond the notable and >admirable exceptions of ISOC and IETF. For example, one way in which the >problem of franchise could have been solved would be to have other >organizations offer cycles on their servers, simultaneoulsy splitting the >load and offering opportunities to participate in a distributed manner. >Neither the ACM nor MIT nor IEEE have been contacted with such a request, >to my knowledge. Two of those mentioned are large membership-based >organizations which have extensive experience in international elections. >All three have technical legitimacy. Beowolf could have been or could be >helpful, harnessing the strength of the Linux users community. > >While it may seem odd to advocate an offering envelope-stuffing and >cycle-sinking opportunities to those who now seemed to be entrenched as >opponents; I believe that in fact such an action would covert opponents to >participants. There are things besides rage to be seen in the previous >letter including passion and commitment. > >In fact, it seems that some are opponents because it is the only role which >is structurally open in ICANN. As a result ther are people who would seem >natural supporters of ICANN who have been forced to choose between a role >in the opposition and no role at all. As such, some can participate as >partners or perceive exclusion and eventually, inevitably, be forced into >opposition as the only available role. > >At a recent Harvard workshop on markets, governance, and globalization I >returned to find that the final note from the day before remained on the >top of my pad, "participation itself is happiness." Going back one page I >found that the sentence began, "Regardless of the final outcome.." > >The importance of participation in long term legitimacy cannot be >overstated. The less participation the less legitimacy among losers AND >winners. Regardless of the outcome those who have not participated see >themselves as losers in a closed and exclusionary process. And I believe >that is why ICANN seems unable to make many willing to offer support, >regardless of rulings and outcomes. > >The closed nature of the nominations committee, the monotonic decrease in >number of popular board members, and the lack of volunteer recruitment have >severely damaged the legitimacy of ICANN. Not because they will lead >necessarily to outcomes which would be unacceptable from any quarter, but >because the reduced participation reduces the acceptability of any outcome. >No outcome can alter the fact of a closed process. An engineering focus on >outcomes over process is often the only correct and appropriate focus. But >in the case of ICANN it has proven woefully narrow. Transparency in the >engineering sense means that a process is so seamless as to be invisible to >the system user. In the governance sense transparency is exactly the >opposite -- transparency means users can see each and every step. ICANN >has been seeking a high transparency system in the engineering sense in >order to produce an efficient and useful mechanism. But transparency in the >governance sense is what is needed. > >Voting and membership are critical elements of participation. This >election, IMHO, could create or destroy the legitimacy of ICANN. > >Please do reopen the registration, allow universities, graduate students, >companies, individuals, and membership organizations to assist in handling >the processing load. You (and I) were amazed by the sheer number of those >who would participate. Allow participation, Legitimacy is difficult. Yet >there is only one way to achieve it: embrace an open, inclusive, >transparent process regardless of the inefficiencies which offend an >engineering sensibility. > >best regards, >Jean > >http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/people/jcamp > > > > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ph-1.613.473.1719 "If anyone proposed libraries today, they would scream about copyright infringement." --anonymous post on slashdot.org
