Re: Organizations versus people: Was Re: [ga] Re: A note to Vittorio

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

karl and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

  I feel compelled to comment on some of Karl's remarks below to
Vittorio.  Interspersed below

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> 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 disagree along with others with Karl's evaluation here. Leopards don't
change their spots.  History that is accurately documented cannot be
ignored or so misinterpreted as to recognize something that has been
well documented accurately to be other than what it was.

>
>
> 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.

  Here I and many of our  members agree with Karl's remarks.  However
after 3+ years it is obvious that the ALAC or any @large structure as
a legitimate part of ICANN has likely been lost.

>
>
> > .... 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.

  We agree here as well with Karl. Very few, organizations can claim
to speak for it's members or even prove or have proof of it's membership.
The ISOC, WGIG, UNESCO, ALAC, and the WIPO come to mind
especially here.

>
>
> 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.

  Many of our members have expressed much in the same way what
Karl is saying here as well.  An organization of organizations is
a structure that by design, leaves out individuals as members AND
individuals.  Hence it nullifies them by design.  Such a structure
cannot be representative of stakeholders/users.

>
>
> Organizations have plenty of ways open to them in ICANN.  Individual
> people have none.

  And this is the single biggest and most significant problem with ICANN.

>
>
> 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.

  Yes, and most organizations should be answerable to the members
directly.  However most are not by design.

>
>
> > 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.

  Also many of our members were excluded from joining and later voting
in 2000.

>
>
> > 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.

  Here our members have voiced their disagreement as being considered
plebiscite's as Karl seems to desire to label them and/or any other
direct or representative structure where individual members have
a voice and a vote.  He also seems to contradict himself in remarks
and comments below, with this [ Above ] remark/statement.

>
>
> 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.

  We agree with Karls remarks here.  Even NGO's have very little
voice or voting power as part of ICANN's SO and constituency
structure.

>
>
> > 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.

Indeed correct here from our members perspective.  And even so,
this effort that Karl refers to was still far less successful as it
could and would have eventually been.

>
>
> > ...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--

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827