Re: Election of ICANN Board - Was: Re: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing...

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto wrote; "I am looking forward to the moment in which an election of
ICANN Board members would have full media coverage as much as a political
election."

I know thats out of context, but I just wanted to point out why it is so
crucial for current ICANN board members to get on the ball and introduce new
sTLDs and gTLDs. Once it starts costing a lot of cash to get elected board
seats will be caprtured even more than they already are by special interests
that don't want more competition in the market. Sorry, but its a fact of
life.

more tlds = more competition in my opinion.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <veni@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 5:19 PM
Subject: Election of ICANN Board - Was: Re: [ga] The Future of Domain
Registry Pricing...


>
> I wanted to stay out of this discussion, but maybe better to give my
> thoughts.
>
> The problem I have with the 2000 elections is neither with the method nor
> the outcome (although I do have something to say on it, see below), but
with
> another element that seems to be forgotten (see further below, if you have
> enough patience to get to that).
>
> The method. I join Veni in the comment that it is rather odd that the
> outcome of a regional election is determined by a single article on the
> press. I did not have the cristall ball at that time (and unfortunately I
> still don't have it), but living in a german-speaking country it has been
> fairly easy to forecast that a press coverage in Germany would have been
> launched, considering that at that time France had two ICANN Directors,
and
> Germany none. So something had to be done.
> Similarly, the "war" between China and Japan started for the AP seat.
> As I said, I join Veni in being puzzled by this. However, Karl is right in
> asking: "What's wrong with that?". What is wrong is that we are talking
> about very very small numbers, compared with the population. I am looking
> forward to the moment in which an election of ICANN Board members would
have
> full media coverage as much as a political election. However, for the time
> being, this is not happening. So one single newspaper, or few articles,
can
> determine the result of an election. At that result can be orthogonal to
the
> real issues on the table.
> I am not ideologically against the method, but believe that in the present
> situation we have to be prepared to the fact that this method can give odd
> results. And what I mean by odd results is that the outcome of the
election
> is not necessarily what the Internet community wants: for instance because
> thousands of people who might have no interest in internet governance do
> vote pushed by reasons that little have to do with expressing their will
> (like maybe a nationalistic press campaign or corporate interest), or,
even
> worse, because people who do have an interest in internet governance are
not
> aware or unable to express their opinion (we are all aware of the
technical
> shortcoming of the 2000 elections, so probably there's no need to restart
> the polemic again).
>
> The outcome. All five at-large Directors have been fine Directors.
However,
> their primary role should have been, in the mind of who has conceived the
> system, the expression of interet users, the people who were not empowere
to
> select the other part of the Board, that was coming from the technical
> community, the business interests, and so on. Has this goal been achieved?
> We can discuss forever on this, and I am sure that we have a wide spectrum
> of opinions on that. My personal observation is that I see more community
of
> views of the internet community with positions expressed today by
Directors
> like Susan Crawford (NomCom selected) or Peter Dengate Thrush (ccTLD
> selected), to name just two, then with positions expressed by some of the
> 2000 Directors.
>
> Now to the crux of the matter: the voice of the users. Pray tell, with the
> possible exception of Karl, what was the means of communication put in
place
> by the 2000 at-large Directors to accept input by the internet community,
> and how was the vote of the individual Directors connected with the
> positions expressed by the Internet community at that time?
> I have repeatedly argued that the problem was not to give formal power to
5
> or 9 individuals, but to establish a mechanism by which the rank and file
> could express a voice that then could be brought to the Board. IMHO, it
> serves no particular purpose, except for window dressing, to be able to
> formally elect wit a so-called popular vote some individuals, if the
> community has no other power, past the elections, other than select a
> different candidate three years later.
> I think it was in Cairo, but it might have been in Yokohama, when I
pointed
> out this very problem from the floor of the public forum, expressing my
> opinion against changing the proposed two-tiered system with a direct
> election, with the argumentation that an elected Director would have
> remained without any control from the electing body. Sorry to say, but
this
> is exactly what happened, from my personal point of view.
>
> Since some of the replies are going to turn the discussion away from the
> direct election subject, into the ALAC [dys]functioning, I might grab the
> bull by the horns and comment on that as well.
> I am not saying that ALAC is the perfect solution, and three years after I
> started my experience within it, I am far than happy for the results
> achieved. However, I remain still convinced of one thing: that the key
issue
> is not to have a heavy political debate every three years, and then forget
> the matter, but how to have a real continuous debate on the issues and how
> to bring the positions of the internet community to the Board. Sure, we
need
> to have a weight on the Board, otherwise it would be a toothless position,
> but to me the priority is to create the common view.
>
> Best regards,
> Roberto
>
>
> >From: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>
> >CC: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if left
> >uncapped
> >Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:37:45 -0700
> >
> >Veni Markovski wrote:
> >>At 11:39 AM 09.8.2006 '?.'  -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >>>Wd got off to a good start in year 2000.  We had a real election for
> >>>ICANN board seats.
> >>
> >>We had elections, yes. And I was part of the MITF. One article in a
German
> >>magazine changed the results of the elections. And we all know what
> >>happened in China and Japan. If we have kept that system, then no East
> >>European ever would have ended up on the Board. Or Australian (if
elected
> >>via Asia Pacific), or Peruvian, or Chilean, etc., etc.
> >
> >A. I for one, do not "know what happened in China and Japan".  I have
heard
> >rumors of corporations pushing their employees to vote for certain
> >candidates.  All I know is that that region elected a fine and capable
> >elected director.
> >
> >B. What's wrong if one article in a magazine results in voters changing
> >their minds or reinforcing their decisions?  Magazines do not have any
form
> >of mind control over voters.  So I guess it was a rather persuasive
> >article.
> >
> >C. I don't know whether an East European would be elected or not.  But I
do
> >know for a certainty that no European, west or east, will ever be elected
> >today or in the future - for the simple reason that ICANN has taken away
> >from *every* European the power to vote for an ICANN director.
> >
> >We ought not to forget that there were highly disruptive forces at play
> >during the 2000 election.  ICANN deployed a registration system that was
> >deeply technically flawed.  (One, particularly one who is a director on
> >ICANN's board, might find it more than extremely interesting to look to
> >what the people who built and oversaw that system are doing today.  Let
me
> >mention the word "patronage".)
> >
> >ICANN's solution, nominating committees, is a highly paternalistic
response
> >that says to the community of internet users "we say unto you that you
are
> >not able to properly use a voting franchise, so we will take that power
out
> >of your hands."  Can you conceive of a device better suited to result in
a
> >diminished opinion of ICANN than its exclusion of the community of
internet
> >users?
> >
> > --karl--
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 8/11/06
>
>