Organizations versus people: Was Re: [ga] Re: A note to Vittorio
I do not agree with the attacks that have been made on you. And I consider you to be one of the "white hats" in this debate. I'm glad you are here and I am glad that you are among those acting in the WSIS/WGIG process. I do disagree with some of the emphasis, in particular I lack faith in the ALAC and consider it a road to an institutionalized, managed, and marginalized role for the public. I would be happy to be proved wrong. .... The organizations that applied to participate in the mechanism, for example, are part of the At Large as well. I do not agree. Organizations that claim to speak for people usually can produce no proof that they actually do so. For example, I am a dues-paying member of the California State Bar section on Intellectual Property. It is an organization just like the part of the Hawaii Bar that is applying for an organizational role in the ALAC. However, it would be very wrong for the IP section of the bar, whether in California or Hawaii, to purport to speak on my behalf, particularly on matters not related to the purpose of my relationship with that organization. The idea that a person is subsumed into organization that claims to represent him/her is a notion that is both very archaic and very modern. Archaic in that it represents a return to pre-18th century modes of thought that existed before the rise of modern democratic (including representative) structures of governance. Modern in that it represents the kind of neo-corporatist revival that is implicit in the kind of "stakeholder" oriented thought pervades discussions of internet governance. Organizations have plenty of ways open to them in ICANN. Individual people have none. Why should organizations get yet another vote in ICANN? Don't they have enough already? The ALAC, if it wishes to obtain legitimacy in the eyes of individuals, ought to not dilute its already weak powers by trying to serve organizational masters as well. But more importantly, I think that the real At Large community - the mass of global Internet users - is still unaware of ICANN itself We had nearly 200,000 people sign up for the 2000 election in ICANN. That happend in only a few months. There is potential interest, or rather, there was. My feeling is that it has been smothered. You can't have a meaningful flat structure at the global level Is that argument relevant? Few, if any, are asking for a worldwide plebiscite on every decision of internet governance. Most people I hear from are happy with representitive systems. The issue is not pure democracy versus representive democracy but rather a measurable and real voice versus powerless howling into the wind. The ALAC as it is structured is places the individual person at such a remote distance from the decisions made by ICANN as to render the public's voice a nullity, particularly when measured by the yardstick that shows how much more of a role, indeed a very direct role, has been granted to organizational interests, particularly certain industrial interests. One month ago in Accra, Ghana, at the WSIS Preparatory Conference, there was an At Large booth registering some hundreds of individuals (yes, individuals) and organizations from all parts of Africa, and giving information about what ICANN and the At Large are. I think that this kind of advances (though we have few of them!) are more signficant than any online thread. Back in year 2000, there was a registration booth in Austin Texas along the river. Many people out running and walking signed up. We signed up a lot of folks at gatherings at universities. And remember that desipte the passive (and arguably active) resistance of ICANN's "technical" staff, we had nearly 200,000 people signed up in a few months for the year 2000 election. And we did this largely on our own money and own effort. So, to compare what we did in year 2000 in a few months to what has happened under the ALAC banner over a period of now going on three years, with funding, puts the ALAC results on the dimunitive side of the scale. ...I don't remember the At Large having any practical role or influence in policy decisions before the ALAC, notwithstanding Karl's efforts. Andy M-M and I had 2 votes out of 19 - and even we count the other at-large Directors, we had, at best 5 out of 19. The at-large was crippled from the outset by a gerrymandered system that made ICANN the hand maiden of certain industrial segments. But even then we did affect policy. See my "decision diary" on my website for a blow-by-blow review: http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/diary/index.htm And don't forget that much of my own role was eviscerated by ICANN's choice to engage in unlwaful - it was a judge of the California Superior Court who used that word - resistance to my exercise of my powers as a Director. I spent 18 months of my two year term fighting the illegal actions of ICANN's management. --karl--
|